Sitting of 8 February 2001

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 15 February.

  COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    New Deal for Lone Parents
    Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the new deal for lone parents. [147903]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment Ms Margaret Hodge): The new deal for lone parents is the joint responsibility of our Department and the Department of Social Security and is operated through the Employment Service. New deal personal advisers offer a comprehensive package of advice and support to lone parents on income support and have helped 78,000 lone parents into work since the start of the programme in 1997.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend. Is she aware that in the Rotherham and Barnsley district, 289 lone parents have moved into work in the past nine months, which is 55 per cent. of those participating in the programme, compared with the national average of 35 per cent? Will she pay tribute to the quality of our personal advisers, the rapport that they strike with their clients and their knowledge of the local labour market? Does she recognise that one other factor in our success rate is that the background of the personal adviser team covers the Child Support Agency, the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service? Will she reassure me that that will continue when the personal adviser meetings become mandatory for income support claimants after 30 April?
    Ms Hodge: I was aware of the figures in my hon. Friend's constituency and I congratulate the personal
    1052
    advisers in his employment team who have been so successful in putting so many people into work. Personal advisers are playing a crucial role in building confidence among lone parents and in helping them to break down the barriers that have prevented them from moving from unemployment into work. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to recruit personal advisers from the wide spectrum to which he referred.

    Post-16 Education
    Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to encourage more students to remain in full-time education after the age of 16 years. [147904]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): We have created the first ever legal entitlement for 16 to 18-year olds to free education and training for young people, which we are supporting with a range of measures, including the new Connexions service for 13 to 19-year-olds, financial support through education maintenance allowances and reform of qualifications and programmes to secure high standards in academic and vocational options for all 14 to 19-year-olds.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has he had an opportunity to look at the recent Education and Employment Committee report on access to higher education, particularly the recommendation that zones similar to education action zones should be set up for higher education to improve aspirations and to widen access for youngsters who have no tradition of staying in education? Does he agree that that would benefit areas such as the centre of my constituency and many others like it; ensure that all suitably qualified youngsters have a chance of higher education, wherever they come from; and end this country's current gross waste of talent?
    Mr. Wicks: We welcome the Select Committee report and will study its conclusions with great care. We already have the excellence challenge because of our concern that all children with good academic qualifications should have an opportunity of going to all universities, including the best in this country. We have also introduced opportunity bursaries for young people from communities with no background of going to university. We are concerned to bring into practice opportunity for all, including those from the poorest backgrounds.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest threats to the expansion of further education provision for 16 to 24-year olds is the disparity in pay and conditions between lecturers and teachers? Does he agree that that is felt particularly in sixth form colleges? What do the Government intend to do to address that acute problem?
    Mr. Wicks: We are aware of the disparity between schools and sixth form and further education colleges and we want to address that issue in the long term. There has to be levelling up. Discussions are taking place with both sides—trade unions and employers—about pay in sixth

    1053
    form and further education colleges. I am confident that the settlement will move us a significant way towards bridging the gap.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend and the education team look closely at the Select Committee report published only this morning, particularly the clutch of proposals aimed at getting young people from poorer backgrounds into higher education? Will he look particularly at the premium paid to universities, which we recommend should increase from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. so that it can reach back to the 16-year old who drops out of education or to 11 and 12-year-olds so that there is a culture of education around them and an ambition to go on to higher education.
    Mr. Wicks: As I said, we welcome the Select Committee report. When I chaired the Committee, I was in on the report's birth, so I certainly welcome it. We are spending £150 million on the excellence challenge and opportunity bursaries. The 5 per cent. extra for those from poorer backgrounds is something for something—not a profit to the university, but money that is required to support those students. We shall certainly consider all proposals with great care.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: In the decade to 1997, the number of students going to university from the poorest homes doubled; since Labour took office, the number has stood still. Do the Government recognise that replacing the student grant with a loan that has to be repaid from earnings of £10,000 annually acts as a deterrent to families who have never earned more than £10,000 annually? Will the Government join Conservative Members by agreeing to raise the threshold for student loan repayment to £20,000 annually? We believe that those students have the potential to earn £20,000 annually, and much more as well.
    Mr. Wicks: Let us deal in facts and not Tory fiction. The number of young people from poor backgrounds going to universities is increasing, and we are determined that it should increase more quickly.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: It is in the report.
    Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman might not want to listen—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should expect the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), once he has asked a question, to listen to the answer.
    Mr. Wicks: I always remember the hon. Gentleman as an excitable member of the Select Committee.
    The number of young people from poor backgrounds attending university is increasing. The policies that we are putting in place will enable more young people from poor backgrounds to go to university, including our best universities. Our system of fees and loans is fair to students, fair to families and fair to the taxpayer. Very soon, 50 per cent. of those going to university will pay no tuition fees at all.
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the education
    1054
    maintenance allowance scheme that is being piloted in Worcestershire, and to the increased number of young people aged 16 to 18 whom the scheme is encouraging to stay on in schools and colleges. What plans does he have to roll out the scheme in other parts of the country? What plans does he have to make the Worcestershire scheme a permanent one?
    Mr. Wicks: Education maintenance allowances are still a pilot exercise—albeit on a large scale as they now cover one third of the country. The early results are showing improvement in participation and a better approach by students once they are in college. The feedback from the young people and teachers whom I meet is excellent. Obviously we shall have regard to the pilot findings when addressing the issue of a national roll-out.
    Mr. John Hayes: Does the Minister recognise and appreciate the relationship between staying-on rates and the quality of life that children experience in the statutory period of their schooling? If that experience is nasty and brutish, is it not also likely to be short as they strive to get out of education at the earliest possible opportunity? If indiscipline and disruption is their experience—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but Opposition Members are angry because people's lives are being blighted by disruption and indiscipline in schools. If, as Ofsted revealed, that is a growing problem, and if that problem is linked to the failure to recruit teachers—which in itself stops people staying on at school—is it not time that Ministers replaced their indifference with a commitment and determination to stop our children's lives being blighted and our teachers' careers ruined?
    Mr. Wicks: We shall obviously very carefully consider the recommendations and points in the Ofsted report; I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. We have 1,000 pupil support units in our schools to help us tackle that problem. We have also made some very clear statements about the need to eradicate bullying in our schools. We will do anything to support school governors, head teachers and teachers in tackling the problem. We are very concerned to tackle the problem. We are not complacent about it, and we are moving in the right direction. Every one of our young people should be able to be taught, and our teachers should be able to teach, in an environment that is conducive to learning.

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What recent meetings he has had with ministerial colleagues to discuss the number of vacancies in the teaching profession. [147905]
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What recent meetings he has had with head teachers to discuss the number of vacancies in the teaching profession. [147912]
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: What recent meetings he has had with parent groups to discuss teacher recruitment. [147916]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and I regularly meet those parents, teachers and heads who have a commitment to raising standards in recruiting and retaining teachers.
    Mrs. Laing: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, throughout the country, but particularly in Essex, there is a severe crisis in teacher recruitment and retention?-If so, why will he not see that his policy of piling red tape, bureaucracy and form filling on new teachers, who have joined the profession because they have a vocation to teach, is causing them to leave, because they are expected to be administrators, not teachers? If he wants to retain teachers in the profession, why does he not change his policy and allow them to teach?
    Mr. Blunkett: When I wrote back to the director of education in Essex, I asked him to contact us at the Department if there were any particular problems in schools in Essex. I have no knowledge of any such contact being made. We have increased recruitment to teacher training by more than 2,200 this year; the latest figure for applications for teacher training from this coming autumn is up by 12 per cent.; and the number of inquiries made to the inquiry helpline has gone up from 39,000 this time last year to 114,000 this year.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is the Secretary of State aware that the situation in Hampshire, as in Essex, is very serious indeed? Head teachers in my constituency have told me that they are gravely concerned about the lack of candidates applying to fill vacancies. Just before Christmas, Fernhill primary school was on the point of sending children home early. Only at the very last minute did it have just one application for the vacancy there, enabling it to keep running at the beginning of this term. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Hampshire, between September and December no fewer than 500 vacancies were advertised, with 60 advertised last week alone?
    It is a very serious situation. The Secretary of State keeps telling the House and the country that everything will be resolved because of all the people who are applying for teacher training, but will he confirm that no less than 25 per cent. of those who apply for and take teacher training give up before they get into the classroom?
    Mr. Blunkett: First, let me make it absolutely clear that I have never said, and never would say, that all will be resolved by the measures that we have so far taken. We know that, in a tight labour market, there will be a continuing challenge to ensure that we recruit and retain sufficient highly qualified teachers to be able to do the job that we are setting them. We also recognise that, having recruited an extra 7,000 teachers over the past two years, and having substantially increased both pay and promotion prospects, so that a good teacher can stay in the classroom and earn £31,000—£34,000 in London—we are now taking the necessary steps to put right what began in the 1980s, when there was a massive drop in recruitment to secondary teaching, and a total lack of action by the previous Government.
    Mrs. Gorman: Would the Secretary of State be interested to hear about my discussions with parent groups
    1056
    in my constituency? They are absolutely fed up and disgusted that their children are being taught in classes not of 30 and 40, but sometimes of 90, when classes have to be amalgamated because there is no one to teach them. Furthermore, they do not regard classroom assistants as a substitute for fully qualified teachers. Would the right hon. Gentleman also be interested to know that they hark back to the days when we had grant-maintained status, when schools had the opportunity to make their own arrangements and when we were creating a proper free market, in which parents had real choice? Will he note that they are looking forward to the free school policy of this Government when we get back into office after the general election?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am always interested in the rantings of the hon. Lady, and not least in the fact that she thinks that her party is still in government. It is this Government who are tackling the teacher shortage and the retention of teachers. It is this Government who will have increased the level of teachers' pay that we inherited so that an experienced teacher of seven years' standing, who was paid £21,000 when we took office, will be able to earn £31,000. It is this Government who have put in place measures to help individual schools.
    I am aware of one school which, on one day, grouped three classes so that 90 children took part in PE and music lessons, but that is not the same as 90 pupils in one class being taken by one class teacher as a result of teacher shortages. I put the facts on the record just in case someone reports a ridiculous story that starts another ridiculous hare running.
    There is a serious problem, and it needs to be dealt with seriously. The hon. Lady's statement is neither serious nor helpful in resolving that problem.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the effective efforts being made by Slough and other areas close to London to solve problems with recruiting teachers? Part of the work of our education action zone is devoted to providing houses for teachers, which has helped local schools to recruit. Will my right hon. Friend encourage other areas with similar problems to develop strategies to provide housing for new teachers, so that they can recruit and retain more teachers.
    Mr. Blunkett: I think that the initiative described by my hon. Friend is excellent, as was the one in Reading that was ridiculed by one national newspaper. That is why last week we allocated another £5 million for an immediate recruitment drive that will pay teachers to come back for a six-week refresher course in shortage areas. It will also pay for child care for those with small children. Instead of disparaging and shying away from re-joining the best profession in the world, people will be encouraged to join it.
    Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unlike the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), Labour Members with constituencies in Essex have not been shouting and ranting about the difficulties faced by schools in the county? Instead, we went to County hall to meet the director of learning services and other senior officials to proffer our help and support in easing the difficulties faced by the director and by head teachers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in

    1057
    congratulating teachers and head teachers in Essex, who have worked very hard to manage the difficulties with recruitment that they have faced? Does he agree that, if the previous Conservative Government had invested as much money as this Government in education, we would not have those problems now?
    One of the difficulties facing education in the south-east is the high cost of housing. Will my right hon. Friend consider ways of dealing with that problem when he looks at teacher recruitment?
    Mr. Blunkett: I strongly welcome the very positive measures taken by my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Essex. They have helped rather than hindered the task of recruiting more teachers. My hon. Friend's question demonstrates why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have been dealing with support for housing, and why, in a debate in the House a couple of weeks ago, I asked for ideas to be suggested. So far, I have not received any such ideas, but I am still open to persuasion. We will continue to look at new ideas, such as the new retention bonus, which is an accumulated bonus of £15,000 over three years which will help to retain teachers in schools facing challenges and thereby enable us to do the job of raising standards for all our children.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff and students at Hull university campus in Scarborough, who have made a special attempt to encourage more mature students to enter the education department for postgraduate qualifications? Will he also reserve time in his very busy diary to come and see the valuable work that is being done there? Will he say what measures he is taking to encourage more mature students to avail themselves of the opportunities to enter what I agree is the most important profession in the world?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am always up for a trip to Scarborough, but preferably when the weather is a bit better and the crabs are freshly in from the sea.
    I congratulate the university on its initiative. Under the graduate teacher programme, which this Government initiated, more than 1,000 mature students are working as teachers, being paid the graduate salary. We will expand the initiative to 1,600 places this year—a solution that is providing an immediate answer—with those who have experience being able to use it in the classroom.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: In Northern Ireland, the number of highly qualified students wishing to enter the teaching profession vastly outnumbers the number of places available at university and teacher training college. Will the Secretary of State consider discussing with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and perhaps with the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland—how the number of places available for teacher training might be increased so that the United Kingdom has sufficient qualified teachers and does not have to poach teachers from overseas, especially from areas where they are already greatly needed?
    Mr. Blunkett: We welcome qualified graduates from across the United Kingdom and elsewhere to the teaching profession. We do so in particular in those shortage areas
    1058
    where, because of the new bursary system and "golden hello" payments for those entering the profession, we have seen a turnaround.
    I am happy to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to those wishing to apply for secondary school teacher training. The latest figures show a very welcome uplift in the number of those seeking teacher training for secondary specialisms—1 per cent. for mathematics, 2 per cent. for English and 5 per cent for science. I would like that to be fostered right across the United Kingdom so that the uplift can be mirrored in other parts of our country.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as the research by Professor Howson shows, the number of teacher vacancies in London alone is 10 times higher than official figures show?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not. A census has just been taken, from 18 January, and the update indicates that although there has been a drop in the number of vacancies at primary level from 0.8 per cent. to 0.5 per cent., there has been an increase of 0.1 of 1 per cent. in the number of vacancies at secondary level. That is higher in London, but is similar to the position last year, using the same vacancy definition as the previous Government used.
    Mrs. May: It is no good the Secretary of State saying that the definition is the same as that used by the previous Government. Come the election, parents will not be asking what the definition of a vacancy is. They will note the way in which the Secretary of State dismissed the genuine parental concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Parents will ask, "We pay the tax, so where are the teachers?" They will ask why their children are being sent home early, taught in larger classes or taught by unqualified staff. They will ask why more newly qualified teachers are leaving the profession than four years ago, and why the Government are driving teachers out of the profession as a result of increasing red tape, mushrooming work load and burgeoning bureaucracy. They will ask why the Government are doing nothing about the growing national crisis in education.
    The time has come to set the schools free and trust teachers again. Will the Secretary of State apologise to the House and to parents, children and teachers for his breathtaking complacency and the damage that his policies are doing to children's education?
    Mr. Blunkett: It used to be my old friend Arthur who ranted and raved and put people off joining the Labour party; since he left, the flood into the Labour party has increased. I suspect that the hon. Lady will have had the same effect on anyone who switched on the Parliament channel this morning. It will not be ranting and raving that resolve the problem, but people, locally, in schools, and from the local authorities that she would abolish, who are helping schools to recruit and retain teachers. It will be the uplift in salaries—including the performance-related pay that the Opposition would not fund—that will solve the problem. It will be the reductions in paperwork; last term, there was a reduction of two thirds in secondary schools, and of 40 per cent. in

    1059
    primary schools. It will be enabling teachers to teach better and to achieve greater satisfaction from their successes with the literacy and numeracy programmes. It will be rejoicing in the successes of those teachers. Those are the things that will encourage young people to join the profession and existing teachers to stay—not the rantings of Opposition Members.

    Employment Service Direct
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What his latest assessment is of the effectiveness of Employment Service Direct. [147906]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The award-winning Employment Service Direct has demonstrated its effectiveness by placing 130,000 people in work since its introduction in January 1999; up to 231 of those people are in my hon. Friend's constituency. The service's effectiveness is shown by the fact that it has helped us to deliver the lowest unemployment for 25 years.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for that answer. I pay tribute to Employment Service staff in east London for the excellent job that they are doing. Will the Minister advise the House how Employment Service Direct fits into the broader proposals for the use of more advanced technology further to improve overall service provision both for employers and for job seekers?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Employment Service Direct is part of a £400 million programme of modernisation, including worktrain, job banks and 9,000 touch screens in jobcentres, enabling unemployed people throughout the UK to have access to about 400,000 vacancies at any time. That supports the Government's drive to end long-term unemployment. I hope that the Opposition, too, will congratulate the Employment Service on this great effort.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Minister seen the note from the House of Commons Library, dated 19 January, which concluded that, since the Government came to power, 300,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector, whereas under the previous Conservative Administration there was a net gain, with the creation of 70,000 jobs? Does she agree that her Government have failed manufacturing industry and those who have lost their jobs in it?
    Ms Jowell: I will certainly study the note, but I also remind the House that, during the 18 years of Conservative government, 2.5 million jobs were lost in manufacturing. The scars remain in the parts of the country that were hardest hit. Under the Labour Government, long-term unemployment is at its lowest for a generation.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Employment Service Direct in Doncaster is complemented by the pilot jobpoints scheme. Even though the pilot scheme has been running for only three weeks, it is already proving to be extremely successful in helping people to find work. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that an assessment will be made
    1060
    quickly of the effectiveness of jobpoints pilots and that, if their present success continues, a decision will be made quickly to roll them out nationally?
    Ms Jowell: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that jobpoints will be available nationally. Their effectiveness is judged through their success in getting people into work. I visited the Birkenhead scheme on the day it was launched. Job seekers like it. Employers are looking for people to fill vacancies. Jobpoints will get people into work more quickly.

    School Sport
    Mr. Bob Russell: If he will publish league tables of the number of hours of physical education provided by each school within the curriculum timetable. [147907]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment(Jacqui Smith): Ofsted collects information about the percentage of taught time for each subject when inspecting schools. In January, the Prime Minister announced an entitlement of two hours of physical education and sport, during and after school, for all children. We will consult and work with all interested parties on how that can best be achieved and monitored. Furthermore, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will shortly produce guidance for schools on how to achieve two hours of physical education a week.
    Mr. Russell: The Minister is obviously reluctant to give the figure, because she well knows that, at best, only 25 per cent. of children receive that amount of physical education within the school curriculum. Is it not about time that we stopped the unhealthy obsession with academic league tables, when the health education unit of Exeter university has produced evidence to show that regular exercise helps children to do better? Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be more physical education within the school curriculum? Does she agree with Sport England's view that it is important to revitalise school sport?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. All students receive physical education within the national curriculum from the age of five to the age of 16, but I agree that we need to do more to develop a good experience in sport for our young people. That is why the major investment in sport, pledged in September 2000, includes £750 million to improve and strengthen our sports facilities. It is why £130 million has already been allocated to local education authorities, which are planning proposals to provide facilities for sports and arts in our primary schools. It is why we are pledged to increase the number of sports colleges, such as Colne community school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to at least 150 by 2004. It is why we already have 143 school sports co-ordinators in place, with 660 primary link teachers. Yes, we need to do more to ensure that our children have the sporting opportunities that we all want them to have, which is why the Government are making such investment and why they will ensure that it is delivered.
    Valerie Davey: The curriculum at key stage 2 includes an entitlement to swimming and an

    1061
    attainment at swimming. Will the Minister confirm that the Department will maintain that and ensure that it is monitored very carefully across all primary schools?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in ensuring that we have high levels of swimming tuition in our schools. As I told her during a recent Adjournment debate, we have set up an advisory group to find out how we can improve the already good standard of swimming teaching, especially for children at key stage 2; how we can ensure that swimming is included in the £750 million investment announced by the Prime Minister to improve facilities; and how we can ensure that the small number of children who do not gain the required standard by the end of key stage 2 are enabled to do so. I share my hon. Friend's wish to emphasise the importance of swimming. We will continue to work to ensure that swimming teaching is maintained and improved in all our primary schools.

    University top-up Fees
    Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with universities on the introduction of top-up fees payable by students. [147908]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. and hon. Friends and I hold regular meetings with representatives from the university sector. We introduced the new funding arrangements for students and for repayment precisely to avoid the universities levying additional charges.
    Mr. Heath: Just before the 1997 election, the then Leader of the Opposition said that he had no plans to introduce tuition fees, yet that was done within two months of Labour's coming to office. The same formulation is being used now; we are told that there are no plans to introduce top-up fees. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he did not favour top-up fees. Will the Secretary of State now give us a clear assurance? Will he categorically rule out top-up fees for the lifetime of the next Parliament? That question has only two possible answers—yes or no. Which is it?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am really sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I have made my position clear during the past two years: I am against the levying of top-up fees. I can now make the Government's position clear. If we win the next general election, there will be no levying of top-up fees in the next Parliament.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 282, and congratulate the university of London students union on its campaign in the capital against top-up fees? If any university went off on a tangent and introduced top-up fees, what would he say to that university and what action would he take against it?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right—there was a vigorous campaign, and understandably so. I assure him that the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 permits us to rule out top-up fees. The power to do that is in the
    1062
    hands of the two Houses of Parliament. As I have just said, with our majority in the House after the next general election, we shall ensure that those fees are not levied.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is not it interesting that Ministers are so far out of touch that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), has already told the House that participation in higher education by socially disadvantaged groups is increasing when the facts show that the welcome advances of the last 10 years of the Conservative Government have been stopped in their tracks? The figures from UCAS—the Universities and Colleges Admission Service—show that the numbers from such groups fell by 168 during the first two years of the Labour Administration. Given those circumstances, are we not confronted with an Administration who do not so much believe in widening participation as in widening waffle on these matters.
    In view of the breach of Labour's past pledges and the implausibility of Labour's present pledges, will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House, now that he is ruling out top-fees, whether he has any similar commitments to make in relation to what, in shorthand, I call "mainstream fees"? Has he any proposals to increase the total amount of mainstream funding to meet the deficiencies in university funding that many universities have already identified?
    Mr. Blunkett: Between 1989 and 1997, there was a 36 per cent. cut in the unit funding per student under the previous Government. We have for the first time since the early 1980s reversed that trend, with an 18 per cent. real-terms increase in university funding over the lifetime of the two spending reviews. The figure is £.7 billion.
    I am fortunate in that I am in possession of the actual facts on the number of disadvantaged students attending university, so I shall give them to the hon. Gentleman. From 1996 to 2000, there was an uplift of 12 per cent. in the number of students from unskilled, manual backgrounds going to university. Although the total is abysmal, there was an uplift in the number from 4,900 to 5,500. That is not a drop; it is an increase. The new excellence challenge, the opportunity bursaries and efforts to reach out to raise the expectations of parents, pupils and schools will, over the years ahead, reverse a legacy of which none of us can be proud.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Ms Hazel Blears: What steps he is taking to reduce long-term unemployment.[147909]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Long-term unemployment is now at its lowest level for 25 years. As my hon. Friend will know, it has fallen by 70 per cent. in her constituency since May 1997. Government action is part of that success, but I hope that the House will pay tribute to the thousands and thousands of unemployed people throughout the country who have seized the opportunities provided by the new deal and other

    1063
    welfare-to-work programmes to move off benefit and into work. That is good for them, good for their families and good for the economy of this country.
    Ms Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Salford now has its lowest unemployment rate for 18 years. It is below 4 per cent., which is in stark contrast to the misery of mass unemployment in the Tory years. We still have more 750 people who are long-term unemployed, but we are having some success. This week, a young man was placed in employment who had not worked since 1992. He has received extra support through the new deal and a jobseeker's grant. For the first time, he has the chance of a decent future. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, under Labour, there will be more such measures of support to ensure that everyone has the chance to get a job, to get into work and to have a decent income for their families, in contrast to what happened under the Tories, when people were consigned to years of hopelessness and misery?
    Ms Jowell: I can confirm that more help will be available to enable us to get rid of long-term unemployment and to see it as a thing of the past. Under the Labour Government it is win, win: a win for unemployed people who are equipped with the skills that they need to get a job and a win for employers seeking to fill their vacancies. Under the Opposition, who have pledged to scrap the Government's welfare-to-work programmes, it is lose, lose: unemployed people will lose and employers will lose because they will not be able to recruit the employees whom they seek.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Lady is being modest on behalf of the Government. Surely what the Government have done for the long-term unemployment statistics is simply to reclassify people. If one adds up the current long-term unemployed, the number of people currently in the new deal who are not listed as such and the number of people on follow-through, one realises that just a few thousand people have left long-term unemployment. Will the Minister now undo the spin of putting these people through the revolving door and tell the House the real facts about the real people who are still being disadvantaged by the swindle of the new deal?
    Ms Jowell: The previous Government removed people from the unemployment register when they went on to training programmes. That is precisely the same as removing people from the claimant count when they go on to the training element of the new deal. There is complete consistency. What is different is that the new deal has virtually eradicated long-term youth unemployment—help that the Opposition would remove.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Measures to tackle long-term unemployment have created many more opportunities for women. My right hon. Friend will be aware of yesterday's announcement that 12.5 million women are working in the United Kingdom labour market. She will also be aware that a significant number of those women receive less pay than men who do the same job, despite the anti-discrimination and equal pay legislation of the 1970s. Moreover, the equal value arguments can tie a case down
    1064
    in the courts for years. The British Coal canteen workers' case has been running for 16 years and is not yet resolved. Will my right hon. Friend see what legislation is required to ease the path to equal pay for women?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Yes, it is good news that figures published today show that more women are in work in the United Kingdom than ever before, but there is still a pay gap. To compare full-time women's earnings with full-time men's earnings, for every £1 that a man earns, a woman earns 81p. That is unacceptable in a modern labour market and the Government will shortly introduce proposals to tackle that pay gap.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of tackling unemployment is to foster good work experience in schools and good business links with schools? Does she, therefore, share the concern of the National Education Business Partnership Network, which faces the prospect of its funding being slashed by up to 60 per cent., and which has described its response to that as varying from acute disappointment to utter dismay? Will she today guarantee that funding for those vital services from 1 April will at least be maintained, if not increased?
    Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today announced a further £6 million to fund precisely that programme, so a total of £23 million worth of investment is going in after all. Of course, the best way to maintain high levels of employment is through a Labour Government.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome the Government's recent commitment to full employment in every region, especially as it includes the employment of lone parents, disabled people and men over 55. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that will have an enormous impact on abolishing poverty in the northern region and will give a great boost to our prosperity?
    Ms Jowell: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Our objective is full employment in every region. To achieve that, we must end long-term unemployment. That is why our welfare-to-work programmes are driving down unemployment, but the Opposition are pledged to scrap those programmes. We are working with unemployed people.

    School Science Laboratories
    Barbara Follett: What measures he has implemented to update school science laboratory facilities. [147911]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Under the school laboratories for the 21st century initiative, £60 million has been allocated from the Government's capital modernisation fund to tackle deficiencies in secondary school science accommodation over this financial year and next. That is enabling about 400 improvement projects to be carried out.

    1065
    In addition, local education authorities have been able to apply for funding from the new deal for schools programme to improve the condition of school laboratories. So far, 151 such projects have been funded, at a cost of just under £37 million. Those authorities may also have incorporated improvements to science accommodation within larger schemes of school expansion, or rationalisation.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the money that the Department has made available for 13 new laboratories in three secondary schools in my constituency. Although that is most welcome, will she tell me what measures the Department is taking to recruit and train more science teachers for secondary schools?
    Jacqui Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed the extra investment in her constituency, which is important in itself in providing the surroundings that are necessary to maintain teachers in classrooms and to deliver high standards. We are pleased also, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that new figures for applications for post-graduate certificate of education courses show that applications for chemistry have increased by 45 per cent., and for physics by 23 per cent. Applications overall for science have significantly increased. The action that the Government are taking to recruit extra teachers in all subjects, but particularly science, is having the necessary effect to maintain high standards and to improve them in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country.
    Mr. James Clappison: So that we can have some criteria by which to judge the Minister's comments, will she simply say whether there are more or fewer recruits for secondary training in science for the academic year that began in September 2000 than in the academic year that began in September 1996? More or fewer?
    Jacqui Smith: What is important is the action that we are taking to get more teachers into classrooms and more teachers into specialisms. We have already seen capital investment such as that which has been made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). The actions that the Government have taken in terms of training salaries and encouraging people into teacher training are having an effect. For the first time for eight years there are more people in teacher training this year than there were at this time last year. The Government are concerned to put in place actions that will encourage teachers into the profession and maintain them in it, while Conservative Members are keen to talk down the profession and worsen the recruitment problem.

    Higher Education (Pay)
    Mr. Mark Todd: What representations he has received on the implementation of the Bett report on pay in the higher education sector. [147917]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): My Department has received a number of representations on the Bett report. It is important to emphasise that the report is for employers and universities and not for the
    1066
    Government. The task of Government is to fund our university system adequately. As part of record funding, we have earmarked some funding for academic and non-academic pay at significant levels. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently consulting institutions representing bodies and unions on the personnel strategies that will underpin the allocation of funds.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it would be helpful to urge employers in the higher education sector to commit themselves, now that they have the most generous settlement for many years, to the process of implementing the recommendations in the Bett report and resolving current disputes about higher education pay?
    Mr. Wicks: We would certainly welcome anything that would prevent disputes, as we are concerned about the education of students. However, I am confident that the parties are now meeting and will resolve the matter. We obviously want our university academics to be paid well, and we must have regard to universities' performance and shortages in certain subject areas.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister may be aware of the current worsening industrial relations at Sheffield Hallam university resulting from actions arising in the dispute over implementation of the Bett report. I accept the Minister's point that detailed negotiations on pay are a matter for employers and employees, but does he have a message for the many staff at Sheffield Hallam university who have contacted me asking for the link to be made between the negotiations and the Government settlement for higher education? Does he also have a message for the employers at Sheffield Hallam university who have made precisely the same point, and said that any pay deal is utterly dependent on Government funding?
    Mr. Wicks: The Department must resist the temptation to get involved in detailed negotiations, whether at Sheffield Hallam university or at any other college or university. Our task, which we have fulfilled, is to fund universities at record levels and offer funds specifically for pay in the university sector. We obviously wish to see any industrial relations problems resolved—although that is the task of the employers and the unions—for the benefit of staff and students.
    Mr. Roger Berry: Although I acknowledge and welcome the Government's substantial increase in funding for higher education, with specific allocations for increased pay, does my hon. Friend accept that staff do not believe that university employers have been negotiating according to the terms of the Bett report? Will he ensure that the Government's provision for increased pay will result in a general increase in pay throughout the university sector?
    Mr. Wicks: I understand those concerns. This coming year alone, we are giving an extra £412 million to the university sector. That is our task as Government—not to negotiate on behalf of employers or trade unions. The future of our university sector depends on decent and fair funding, which must be the object of negotiations.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister talked about the increased resources available to universities, which are welcome. He also talked about the quality of staff. Is he convinced that the available resources enable universities to employ quality staff, especially in the sciences? In addition, does he believe that sufficient students are going to university to study the sciences which, of course, was the subject of the earlier question tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)?
    Mr. Wicks: We certainly need to encourage more young men and women to study sciences and other disciplines crucial to our economy. We tackle that in a wide variety of ways: through our schools, the modernisation of careers services and the new Connexions service. Total departmental funding for the higher education sector will be £5.8 billion this coming financial year, rising to £6.1 billion the year after and £6.4 billion in 2003–04. Unlike the previous Administration, we are providing resources for universities. It is for the universities themselves to determine the sensitivities of pay structure.

    Construction Workers (New Deal)
    Mr. Desmond Browne: How many more people are working in the construction industry as a result of the new deal. [147918]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Twelve thousand bricklayers, plasterers, roofers and other
    1068
    construction workers have found jobs in industry, helped by the new deal. A construction taskforce is identifying further opportunities and ways in which the new deal can assist in meeting skills shortages in the construction industry.
    Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply and invite her to join me in congratulating the Employment Service and its partners which have, through the new deal action team for jobs pilot in east Ayrshire, secured, in six months, more than 230 new jobs for people who would otherwise have been in long-term unemployment. Many of those jobs are in the construction industry, and the figure represents 20 per cent. of the registered unemployed in the areas covered by the pilot.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that the simple fact of the Employment Service paying for training for the CITB—Construction Industry Training Board—roadworks and street certificate is daily helping people who would otherwise be unskilled to get available jobs in the construction industry? Will she confirm that that type of targeted investment in skills will be expanded by the Government? I urge her to extend that pilot project to my whole constituency.
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his support for the action team for jobs in his constituency—one of the pathfinders. There are now 40 action teams for jobs helping unemployed people back to work in some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Yes, I can promise that efforts will be redoubled to strengthen the links with the construction industry in my hon. Friend's constituency. That industry has been a valued partner in the work of the action team.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Conditions in Her Majesty's Prisons" followed by a debate entitled "Shifting the Balance". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
Remaining stages of the Capital Allowances Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill.
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Debate on the report of the BSE inquiry by Lord Phillips on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
As I reminded hon. Members last week, we will not sit again thereafter until Monday 26 February.
The provisional business for the day that we return after the constituency week will be:
MONDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords].
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 28 February, there will be a debate relating to informing and consulting employees in the European Community, in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 14 February, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee A relating to the prevention and control of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 28 February 2001: European Standing Committee C—Celevant European Union document: Unnumbered EM submitted by DTI dated 21 November 2000, informing and consulting employees. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 23-xxx (1999–2000).]
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House.
Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that, if re-elected, the Government would propose scrapping the pound within the next two years, will the right hon. Lady press the Chancellor to table a debate so that the Government's timetable can be fully discussed by the House? That would also provide an opportunity for hon. Members to contribute to a debate on the Government's intentions with respect to the wording of a referendum question. There appears to be some confusion on the part
1070
of those on the Government Front Bench, not least the Prime Minister. We would welcome an opportunity to hear the Government's intentions.
As the Leader of the House announced, on Monday the second Opposition debate initiated by the Conservatives will give hon. Members of all parties an opportunity, of which they have been deprived by the Government, to vote on "Shifting the Balance"—that is, the shift in the balance of power from the Executive to the Back Benches in respect of Select Committees. Bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister has promised a free vote, will the right hon. Lady confirm that Labour Members on both Front and Back Benches will be allowed a free vote on Monday?
Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to the proceedings of Bills once they have passed from the Chamber into Committee? In particular, I draw her attention to the proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The Minister claimed on Second Reading that, under the programme motion, there would be 16 sittings in Committee. However, when the Sub-Committee met, the motion proposed by the Minister was for 14 sittings.
I know that the right hon. Lady has written to Ministers about that, but it is wholly unacceptable that a programme motion that is debated in good faith by the House should be changed when the resolution is put before the Sub-Committee. The programme motions and the entire programming procedure are still in disarray. As that was the Government's initiative, I ask the right hon. Lady to get a grip as soon as possible.
Could we also have the promised annual debate on small firms? I ask that question because of a press release circulated on behalf of the Cabinet Office by its Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Manchester Blackley (Mr. Stringer). In the press release, the hon. Gentleman claims that over-regulation is a myth. Indeed, according to the Government, small firms in the UK have little cause for concern about red tape. It is not only the Opposition who disagree with that view, but organisations such as the Forum of Private Business, which has listed many questions that challenge the Government's assertions. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on small firms, so that Opposition Members can question the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of small businesses throughout the country, about his rather exaggerated claim?
Finally, will the Leader of the House consider allowing a debate in Government time on international development? The subject has not been debated since 1 July 1997, but Opposition Members would welcome the opportunity to share with the House many of our policies, especially in relation to helping the third world. We regard such a debate as a high priority and we hope that the Government will share that view.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was in her place yesterday, so she has no excuse for pretending that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government propose to scrap the pound. She is intelligent and, as far as I am aware, she is not deaf, so she must know what my right hon. Friend said. He was asked when early in a Parliament would be, and he answered that that naturally meant during its first half. That is when the Government propose that we should seek to make an

1071
assessment of the economic impact of joining the euro. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend said—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) wittering on. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. It has been said repeatedly and it will continue to be said.
I understand that things must be hard for Opposition Members, as they are desperate to pretend that the Government want to bounce people into a referendum straight after the election. However, we have made it absolutely clear, in the roundest and simplest possible terms, that we have no intention of doing any such thing. The Opposition are struggling, but they nevertheless have no excuse for suggesting that something was said when it was not said.
The hon. Lady asked me about the debate on the Liaison Committee issue. I am sure that she does not expect me to inform the House of the Government's advice to Labour Members on a Conservative party motion that we have not yet even seen, and I have no intention of doing so. She is right that it is perfectly normal for House business to be dealt with on a free vote, but the motion is not House business; it is Opposition business. With all charity to the hon. Lady, who did not have her present responsibilities when the Liaison Committee report was published, I point out that not all her colleagues will enter the Lobby to support the report if they are given a free vote.
As I said, we shall consider the matter when the motion becomes available. We may find that we must seek to amend it, but that remains to be seen. The hon. Lady spoke about a shift in power from Government to the Back Benches in respect of the report. In fact, there would be a shift in power from the Government to three individuals who are the most senior members of the existing Select Committee structure, in the new Parliament or whenever the proposals were introduced. That is not quite the same as a shift in power to Back Benchers, but the House will have its own views on the matter.
The hon. Lady asked about proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. I am not aware of the precise developments to which she referred and I shall certainly make inquiries. However, it is for the Standing Committee that considers that Bill to decide whether it needs more sittings to dispose of its business expeditiously. The handling of programme motions is not in disarray. Given that the technique is new and experimental, I believe that it is working reasonably smoothly. Furthermore, the procedure was not solely my initiative or that of the Government. I remind her that, at the outset of the current Parliament, the then Modernisation Committee recommended that we should use programme motions for all Government Bills. Of course, Opposition Members did not subsequently wish to adopt such an arrangement, for understandable reasons.
The hon. Lady asked for a debate on small business. I shall take that request into account. As she will be aware, every Leader of the House is most wary of promising annual debates, not least because so many such debates are sought with regard to many different issues. But I am of course conscious of the pressure for a debate on small business—and, as the hon. Lady will know, we held such a debate last year.
1072
I am well aware that small businesses are always concerned about over-regulation. I remember them protesting when the Conservatives made them take over the handling of sick pay and maternity pay, and they were most upset when the Conservatives made them act as immigration police. These are not unfamiliar accusations.
The hon. Lady asked for a debate on international development. That is certainly an attractive thought, especially as yesterday I once again heard the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), claim that this was yet another area in which the Conservatives did not propose to make any cuts in the Government's approved budget. They are running out of options—but I fear that that is not a reason for allowing a debate in the near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's reports of an increase of £9 billion—85 per cent—in Shell's profits? Will a statement be made in the House, and will that statement call on Shell and the other oil companies to reduce the price of petrol in accordance with the Chancellor's announcements in his pre-Budget statement? If the oil companies refuse to do that, will the Chancellor be asked to impose a windfall tax on all of them in his Budget?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am sure that all members of the public will be concerned if they believe the price of petrol is being held artificially high when it would be possible, as well as desirable, for it to be reduced. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's wish for a statement examining these matters; I fear I cannot undertake to find time for one in the near future, but I am sure that, as always, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will heed my hon. Friend's words.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I think all Members will welcome the news that we now have a full day in which to debate the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care Bill. I believe that at one point the time was to be more limited.
Does the Leader of the House recall her exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) during last week's business questions, about teachers' pay and conditions? Does she now recall—she confessed then that she was not aware of it—that a written question tabled for answer on Thursday was withdrawn and retabled for answer on Friday, so that those expecting an announcement on Thursday would be caught out? Is she now aware that the announcement was actually made on the "Today" programme on Friday morning, before the publication of the written answer? Is she satisfied that that is the best way for Government policy to be announced; and can she ensure that in the coming weeks we have a better understanding—a proper understanding—of the needs of the House and its business?
As the Leader of the House will recall, the Chancellor indicated in his autumn statement that he intended to renegotiate the level of VAT that his Conservative predecessors had imposed on the repair, maintenance and conservation of churches and chapels. Can she tell us when the Chancellor will be in a position to make a full statement on progress—he has given me an answer which, frankly, suggests that little has been made—and what he

1073
proposes to do about the £38 million of additional funds from hard-pressed congregations that go towards the VAT budget?
I understand that the Chancellor intends to make some sort of announcement; when will he do so? We need to know the scope of the proposals, how the timetable will fit in with the delay in dealing with VAT and, indeed, whether the funds will be capped.
We agree with the Conservatives that we should have a debate on the timetable for the euro referendum—if only because it would allow their leader to repeat the pledge he gave on BBC South and West television, when he said that he was opposed to any referendum on the euro. He is not prepared to let the British people decide.
Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the statement to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I shall certainly make inquiries, as it was my impression that at least some of those currently funding the Conservative party were doing so on the basis of their belief that the party would allow a referendum. We knew, of course, that there was unlikely to be one in the next Parliament if the Conservatives were elected, because they have set their face against that, even if it is in Britain's economic interests.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point; nevertheless, it does not change my view on the likelihood of a debate in the near future on these specific matters, and on the timing.
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Health and Social Care Bill.
On teachers' pay, I did not follow the precise timing of the way in which the matter was handled. It is always a matter of regret if people feel that others have been informed before the House, even though that may not always have happened. There would never be any question of the timing of a parliamentary question being changed to catch people out. There may be other reasons for a change, such as to ensure that precise information was available or, occasionally, to avoid one answer being swamped by another. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, that is an important matter, and the House and the country were interested in the outcome of the review, and in the Government's view on it.
With regard to the renegotiation of VAT, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be in a position to make a statement on his progress on those matters, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a statement on job losses in the aerospace industry in Lancashire? BAE Systems is wielding an axe over thousands of jobs, but we do not yet know where that axe is going to fall. Some employees are being given no real choice of deployment: the choice between working at Warton, Salmesbury or in Saudi Arabia is not a real choice for people with families. The time has come for a statement to be made.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents. I know that he and other colleagues from the north-west have been pressing for more clarity on those issues, in the
1074
House and outside, so that their constituents might know how they are going to be affected. I fear that I cannot undertake to provide a statement in the near future, although I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend will recall that it is Trade and Industry questions on Thursday, and, depending on how the draw has gone, he might find an opportunity to raise the issue then.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Health has failed to answer a question from me, on the exclusion of nurses in west Kent from the new cost of living supplement, that I tabled on 20 November? Is she also aware that he has failed to respond to a letter from me dated 24 November? Does she agree that that is unacceptable? What will she do about it?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of the background to the specific constituency issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Obviously, I understand his concern. If it has not proved possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with the issue until now, I shall certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to his attention.
Mr. Tom Clarke: May I assure my right hon. Friend that my request for a debate on international debt relief was not at all influenced by the question asked by the shadow Leader of the House? After all, the Opposition had every opportunity to devote one of their Opposition day debates to that subject, but they chose to debate asylum seekers and other subjects.
A recent Oxfam study showed that of 12 countries experiencing debt relief—greatly to the credit of the Department for International Development—three of them nevertheless had to spend more on debt servicing than on health and education. DFID has a good story to tell, and a lot to contribute in terms of providing a strategy for international debt relief and the reduction of poverty. Given that it has such a good story to tell, may I support the calls for such a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I understand and sympathise with both the basic points that he makes. There is a good story to tell on the Government's initiative and success in promoting the cause of debt relief.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the issue of spending on education vis-à-vis debt. We have substantially increased the resources made available, committing more than £400 million since the general election to support primary education in developing countries, as part of the increase in the development budget as a whole by 45 per cent. in real terms. I accept that the Government have a good story to tell, although there remains a great deal to be done, not least in the international arena. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in Government time in the near future, but my right hon. Friend might like to consider the attractions of the time available in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young: Will the right hon. Lady express her gratitude to the Opposition for finding time for a debate and a vote on a matter for which the Government should have provided time: the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance"?

1075
Will she reflect on her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)? The Prime Minister made it clear that there would be a free vote on the report. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, if the Opposition table a motion in the precise words of the Liaison Committee, there will be a free vote as the Prime Minister promised?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course it is for the Opposition to determine topics for debate on Opposition days, and it is for the country to judge whether the Opposition's priorities reflect public concern. However, the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the Prime Minister said, entirely correctly as always, that there is a free vote on House matters. The Prime Minister has never said, and is never likely to say, that Opposition day debates are a matter for a free vote.
Mr. Derek Foster: May I support the call of the shadow Leader of the House for the Chancellor to come to the House, not to embarrass the Tory party about its single currency policy, but to give the Opposition an opportunity to hear the excellent speech that he made to a private meeting in Westminster Hall yesterday about the Government's plans for full employment in every region and for abolishing child poverty, pensioner poverty and poverty among disabled people?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I am aware of the Chancellor's determination to build on the solid foundations that he has laid for the economy by tackling full employment and child poverty. I understand and sympathise with my right hon. Friend's views. He knows that, despite many opportunities on Opposition days or at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Conservative party prefers dancing around the argument about angels on the head of a pin and discussing whether any aspect of the Government's policy on the euro has changed to dealing with important issues of substance to the British people and to the future of our country. Nevertheless, I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for such a debate, although I am sure that the Chancellor would be delighted to take part in it.
Mr. James Paice: Does the right hon. Lady know that yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the National Farmers Union annual general meeting that he believed it was time for a full debate in Parliament on bovine tuberculosis and the epidemic that has spread throughout the country under the Government? Has the Minister made any request to the right hon. Lady for such a debate? If so, when will it take place?
Mrs. Beckett: I would be slightly surprised to learn that my right hon. Friend had couched his remarks in those precise terms. It was not my impression that tuberculosis began to spread on 1 May 1997. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that an important agriculture debate on BSE is scheduled for the near future, and that takes precedence. The Conservative party has called for that important debate for a long time.
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): The Financial Times reports on 30 January that the Postal Services
1076
Commission, the new regulator for the Post Office, has issued a draft licence for consultation, which will take effect from 26 March. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that the licence is placed in the Library? Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House before the licence becomes operational? I am especially concerned about the three years until the fines are introduced for late delivery. That is a matter of great anxiety to my constituents in Putney.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's anxiety on behalf of his constituents that the licence conditions should be properly aired. There are genuine problems, especially in parts of London. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor in the near future. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's request for licence papers to be placed in the Library to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I also remind my hon. Friend that Trade and Industry questions are scheduled for next Thursday. He may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Why are the Government so frightened of debating the euro? Does not the right hon Lady recognise that, when she says on the "Today" programme that the decision will be taken entirely on the subjective judgment of the Chancellor and on subjective criteria that he has set, she raises the suspicion that it will be based not on what is in the best economic interests of the United Kingdom but on what is perceived by the Government to be in the electoral interests of their party?
Mrs. Beckett: There is no question of Labour Members being afraid of debating the euro; we are just deeply bored with the endless round-the-houses pursuit by Conservative Members attempting to find something different in what Ministers are saying. The hon. Gentleman claimed that we are worried about debating the euro because a decision might be taken not in the best economic interests of the country but in the political interests of the Government. There is only one party in the House that is determined that such a decision should be based not on the country's economic interests but on its own political stance, and that is the Conservative party.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend will recall that last week I asked for an urgent debate on the cuts in vital social services being made by Tory councillors in Calderdale. Those councillors are now proposing even more damaging cuts, this time in a health and social services initiative that has just been given beacon status because it is so highly thought of. Will my right hon. Friend please make time for a debate, not just on the cuts in Tory-controlled Calderdale but on the cuts being made by Tory-controlled councils across the country?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, particularly since the cuts that caused her concern last week are now being exacerbated in a way that might damage the delivery of health and social care. She will recall that those of us who campaigned in local elections during this Parliament warned people who want to see improvements in health and social care about the inconsistency inherent in local authorities pursuing

1077
policies different from those of the Government. If they are happy to see such provisions cut, they are entirely right to vote for the Conservative party, because that is its policy.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern but fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future. However, it is Environment questions next Tuesday and she might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the right hon. Lady note in her busy diary the forthcoming exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, commencing on 26 February, in which we hope to demonstrate our vision for a future Northern Ireland by exhibiting what is best? Will she recommend to colleagues and staff in both Houses that they seek to visit the exhibition and become better informed about what is best in Northern Ireland, so that they can fully participate in future debates?
Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his plug for that exhibition. I share his view that it is good for people to be aware of positive developments in Northern Ireland, not least because it is important to project a positive view and to see the Province move towards greater prosperity and success in the future.
Mr. John McFall: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the request by the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on international development, so that we can focus on the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, a commitment from which the Tory Government resiled during their 18 years in office, with the result that we inherited a figure of 0.2 per cent? It is important for us to increase that figure. A debate would also give us an opportunity to discuss problems such as AIDS in Africa, which is claiming 500,000 children's lives and 2.5 million adult lives.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's point. He is entirely right that, as far as I can recall, throughout the 18 years of Tory Government there was a sustained reduction in the resources made available to help developing countries. Although I sympathise with his concern and with his anxiety to highlight the Government's progress in the right direction—a direction to which the previous Tory Government were committed in theory, although they went in the wrong direction—I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate.
Mr. John Wilkinson: As the right hon. Lady is the custodian of the House's duty to hold Ministers to account, can she guarantee that if the former Treasury Solicitor, Mr. Hammond, presents a report to the Prime Minister on the conduct of Ministers, that report will be published verbatim and not bowdlerised, and that the Prime Minister will come to the House to make a statement upon which he can be questioned?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend immediately volunteered to establish the inquiry—which I believe is being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond—and it has been made clear that Sir Anthony's views and conclusions
1078
will be made public. It is a matter for him now—we hope speedily—to conduct that inquiry. The Government have no concern about putting the report in the public domain. It is we who established the inquiry so that its outcome can be in the public domain.
Ms Julia Drown: The Leader of the House will know that, at business questions and on other occasions in the House, I have raised the issue of volunteers and the Criminal Records Bureau. She will also know that, this week, in a written parliamentary answer, the Government announced that they would not be charging voluntary organisations for checks to screen out those who are unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults. Could a Minister be asked to make that announcement in the House, so that all hon. Members can congratulate the Government on it? Does she agree that such an announcement would provide hon. Members with an excellent opportunity to discuss the contrast between the Government's support for voluntary organisations and vulnerable people in our communities and the support being given them by Conservative Members?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is only one of many hon. Members to raise the issue—although she has been most assiduous in raising it in the House—of the charge. The Government have always said that the matter was under review, and that is proven by the fact that the review has come up with a set of proposals different from those that were first advanced. She is right also to say that that is only one example of the ways in which the Government have massively increased support for voluntary organisations. I know that organisations such as the scouts and the guides, which in many ways led that campaign among voluntary organisations, will particularly welcome the announcement.
I fear nevertheless that I cannot undertake to offer to find time for a special debate on the issue—not least because, sadly, there are so many occasions when the House should be able to congratulate Ministers on taking action for which the House had called yet which turn out to be about something else entirely.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is now clear that, shortly after the general election, the Government will announce their intention to ditch the pound. Does the right hon. Lady understand that most of us believe that the economic criteria are largely subjective and that the conclusions will be whatever the Chancellor wants them to be? Does she also understand that many of us believe that the constitutional and political criteria are yet more important? Consequently, should we not have before the general election early and frequent debates so that the electorate can have exposed to them exactly where the Government stand on those issues?
Mrs. Beckett: If I may take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, it is absolute rubbish to pretend—as Conservative Members are clearly desperate to do—that the Government are committed, as he puts it, to "ditching the pound" straight after the general election. What the Government are committed to doing is ensuring that there is an assessment of the economic position and of whether we feel that the economic tests are met. If,

1079
and only if, it is judged that those tests are met, the Government might make a recommendation that would be put to the decision of the British people in a referendum.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a separate point about the constitution and political criteria, which met with loud approval on the Opposition Benches. He is entirely right that these are different issues and that they are of considerable importance. The Government have never disputed that. We have simply made it plain that, having given careful and mature consideration to those constitutional and political issues, we do not take the view that they are of sufficient weight to prevent Britain from joining the euro should we conclude that that is to our economic advantage.
I see no great need for frequent and early debates to explore these issues, as the position has always been absolutely clear. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is rightly pointing out that it was the Conservatives who signed the Maastricht treaty. One must be cautious with information that comes from press reports, but I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has said that Conservative Members will be free, in their personal general election manifestos, to say that they want never to join the euro, even if it is in Britain's economic interest, or even to go so far as to say that we should leave the European Union. That is an interesting debate which is clearly being held sub rosa in the Conservative party. I wonder why it does not want to share it with the rest of us.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We had a useful Adjournment debate on Monday about unsolicited mail. A load of scams are being operated to wheedle money out of people, some of whom become addicted to the methods being used against them. As every Member of Parliament has constituents who are badly affected by such operations—and the Royal Mail does not play a very honourable role in this regard—can we have a debate on the matter in Government time? We might then end up with some red tape around the necks of the people involved, which we could tighten.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend sounds uncharacteristically bloodthirsty, but hon. Members of all parties will share his irritation about unsolicited mail—and indeed unsolicited faxes and all the other paraphernalia. I fear that although I sympathise with the anxieties that are caused, I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future, but I will undertake to remind my ministerial colleagues of the importance that my hon. Friend and others attach to it.
Mr. John Hayes: I must repeat the call for a debate on the subject of Britain joining the euro, because the Leader of the House did not answer the question fully. The only thing that the Prime Minister was clear about yesterday was that the pound is on death row. It has a two-year stay of execution and the only chance of a reprieve is the intervention of an incoming Conservative Government. Will the right hon. Lady make absolutely clear what the question would be in such a referendum? We failed to get an answer to that from the Prime Minister yesterday. The House and the British people want a debate on the subject, so that they
1080
will have a fair and reasonable chance, when the referendum comes, to exercise their judgment and protect the interests of this country by keeping the pound.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that there is remarkably little to add to what has already been said ad nauseam on the issue. I know why the Conservatives repeatedly ask what the question would be in a referendum: they want to bolster their contention that we will hold a referendum immediately after winning the general election. That is not true. We have made it absolutely clear that we have no intention of bouncing people into a referendum straight after the election. It is also absolutely clear that, if the Conservative party were to be elected, there would be no referendum. As to what is on death row, it is perfectly clear that that position is occupied by the policy programme of the Conservative party.
Mr. Kevin Barron: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who called in business questions last week for an early debate on the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Has there been any progress?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), not for the first time, asked about scheduling such a debate. I am aware of the Committee's concern that it should be held as early as possible. Debates that require the presence of two senior Cabinet Ministers, one of whom is frequently charged with being out of the country, are not always easy to schedule. I can give an assurance, however, that such issues are under active consideration. All that I can undertake is that we will do our best.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Leader of the House has agreed that the Prime Minister meant what he said when he responded on 13 July to a question about the report from the Liaison Committee entitled "Shifting the Balance" by saying that there would be a free vote on the matter. That is encouraging, but last week the right hon. Lady made it clear to me, as she had done previously to other hon. Members of all parties, that she was going to do her best to prevent that free vote from taking place. There is the opportunity for that free vote to take place in Opposition time on Monday—and we shall leave to one side what conclusion the electorate should draw about which party stands up for the independence of Members of Parliament and their ability to hold the Executive to account. If the terms of the motion under debate are to be precisely those adopted by the Liaison Committee, will the right hon. Lady say whether Labour Members will have a free vote?
Mrs. Beckett: I have never made the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I have simply answered the questions posed repeatedly by Opposition Members by saying that matters to do with the House are decided on a free vote. I have also said that we will of course look with care at any motion that the Opposition table, although we may wish to amend it. However, it has never been the case that Opposition business is the subject of a free vote.
Mr. Derek Twigg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a debate on the future of public services,

1081
especially education and health, might be possible at some time? I am surprised that the Opposition did not pick that as the subject for one of their supply days. That is especially interesting, given last week's speech by the Leader of the Opposition on the future of public services: it seems that Opposition Members want to talk about such things outside the Chamber but not inside it. I should be especially interested to hear the Opposition's policies with regard to the two-tier education system that they want to introduce, and on the future of private health care.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point but he will know that, although the Leader of the Opposition refers occasionally to such policy areas outside the House he never manages—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at last week's Question Time—to get around to asking questions about them in the House. My hon. Friend is also right to identify the great interest, time and thought being devoted by the Government to the future of our public services. He may know that the Prime Minister will very shortly—very shortly indeed, in fact—make a speech setting out the framework within which we hope to take forward our policies on education, crime and other areas. Further announcements will be made on the policy debates that we hope to take forward in the coming weeks.
I know that my hon. Friend and others will study my right hon. Friend's speech with great interest. However, although I understand my hon. Friend's wish to have a debate focusing on how we want to improve standards in public services and on how the Opposition would—given the chance—undermine and destroy them yet again, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for that debate in the near future.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I ask the Leader of the House yet again to reconsider a debate on the abolition of the pound, to which the Government are so committed? Is it not fair to say that the manifesto on which the Labour party fought the last election committed us to a referendum in this Parliament? That manifesto went on to state:
"In any event, there are three pre-conditions which would have to be satisfied before Britain could join during the next Parliament: first, the Cabinet would have to agree; then Parliament; and finally the people would have to say 'Yes'".
Why were there three preconditions before the last election, whereas now there are five? Is it because the Cabinet cannot agree?
Mrs. Beckett: Dear, oh dear! The hon. Gentleman can surely do better than that. It remains the case that, before any referendum of the British people, an assessment must be carried out. The Cabinet would then have to come collectively to the view that that assessment meant that the tests set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the full agreement of the whole Government, had been satisfied. The Cabinet would have to be confident—as far as that is possible in this world—that it would be in Britain's economic interests to join the euro. If the Cabinet so concluded, the decision would be put to the House and then, ultimately, to the British people.
1082
The Opposition are trying to exert general pressure in relation to this matter. I may be in error, but I think that almost every Opposition Member who has raised the matter with me and expressed such great concern for the potential loss of the pound in fact voted for the Maastricht treaty.
Ms Dari Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the anxieties felt in all steel communities throughout the United Kingdom as a consequence of Corus's announcement. I am sure that she will also accept that many Members of Parliament who represent steel areas are furious at the response of Sir Brian Moffat, who, having offered us the opportunity to speak with him today, has cancelled the meeting. We see this, once more, as a sign that he is contemptuous of Members of Parliament and of this House.
Some 22,000 people in the industry are directly employed by Corus. That figure can be multiplied by five, taking into account others who are employed as a consequence. Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on steel?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to raise this matter, as have other Members representing constituencies strongly affected by the moves proposed by Corns. I think that Members across the House will share her concern if there are difficulties, when constituents' interests are so much at stake, in making contact with those who have the authority to make the decisions.
As my hon. Friend knows, there was a recent debate in Westminster Hall about this matter, and I am confident that it will continue to be aired. I fear that I cannot undertake at present to find time for a further special debate in the near future. However, my hon. Friend will know that it is Department of Trade and Industry questions next week and the issue may well come up then.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can we please have an urgent debate on the increasing but understandable propensity of the Scottish Parliament to vote increased benefits to the Scottish people at the expense of the English taxpayer? Is it not about time that we had a full explanation of why it is considered proper for the taxpayer to spend 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. more on Scottish people in terms of health and education, while English taxpayers—long-suffering and patient though they are—are expected to put up with this state of affairs indefinitely? Please can we have a debate so that we can clarify the matter and put an end to it?.[Interruption.]
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington reminds me of something that I was about to mention. The right hon. Gentleman speaks very forcefully on behalf of his constituents, although the decisions to which he refers were made long ago and are constantly aired in the House. May I say—with deep respect to you, Mr. Speaker—that it is a little surprising that the right hon. Gentleman, as a good Scot, appears to be so anxious about the Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in asking for a debate on the need to introduce new law to deal with scams—postal scams in my hon. Friend's case and fax scams in mine?

1083
My sister and her husband have a hotel in Lincolnshire, and she has sent me a huge pile of telephone scams received over the past three years. They are all false bookings for the hotel, sent out by companies that have been set up with the specific objective of conning hoteliers in the United Kingdom. The scam is talked about in hotel industry magazines to alert hoteliers, but it is going on in other businesses all over the country. We need new law to stop these scams.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and powerful point. I was not aware of the episode to which he alludes, although I am aware that, unfortunately, the fraudulent and criminal mind is always good at devising new means of taking money off people. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the issue in the very near future.
I confess that I was not aware of the point that my hon. Friend was about to raise when he first spoke about outlawing scams—I thought that he was talking about what the Financial Times said about the Conservative party's policy on student loans.
Dr. Evan Harris: Last night, the Select Committee on Education and Employment—or, at least, the Labour members of the Committee—released a report on access to higher education. We look forward to an early debate, before the election, on the Government's response to what was in the report, as well as on tackling student hardship and debt aversion, which were not in the report.
It can be seen from the proceedings that at the very last meeting of the Select Committee, the mild criticism of the Chancellor over the Laura Spence affair, previously agreed by all members, was deleted by the Labour majority. There were rumours that there was Cabinet pressure to remove such criticism which, in turn, implies unauthorised knowledge of the content of private proceedings. Can the right hon. Lady reassure the House that she and—as far as she can say—her Cabinet colleagues did not receive premature or unauthorised information about what was in the report, or about the private proceedings of the Committee?
Mrs. Beckett: I received no such information, nor indeed am I aware of the slightest evidence that any member of the Government did so. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes such an allegation. I am aware that some concern was expressed in the Committee about the unauthorised release of information—but not by Labour Members. The issue should be handled with more caution. The Government will, of course, respond in the fulness of time to the Select Committee report, which has only just appeared. It remains to be seen whether the issue as a whole will be dealt with accurately. On the "Today" programme this morning, I heard the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) make the astonishing assertion that the Labour party brought in the student loan system. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman was 10 years ago, when the Conservatives introduced that scheme, but if we cannot have higher standards of accuracy than that, our debates will certainly be carried out with increasing difficulty.
Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend is of course aware of the remarks made nearly two weeks ago by the father of Damilola Taylor—that this country needs to address an agenda of moral regeneration. Does she agree that the House should take that matter seriously and that, because of those events, it is incumbent on the Government to find time to consider ways that we can respond constructively to that viewpoint?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I know that the whole House was impressed by Mr. Taylor's anxieties and concerns and sympathises with him in his sorrow. I do not anticipate being able to find time for a debate on that specific matter in the near future. However, perhaps during the days and weeks ahead, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary turns his attention to the outlook and to the changes that we propose to roll forward in our agenda for handling crime and offences—not least among the young—some opportunity will arise to focus on the issues raised by my hon. Friend.

Points of Order
1.21 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, during Prime Minister's questions, in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the Prime Minister said that there had been 500,000 extra students in further and higher education since the Government came into office. The video recording clearly shows that he said 500,000, yet in the Official Report, at column 921, the figure has been changed from 500,000 to 5,000. Mr. Speaker, is it in order for a figure to be changed in that way? How may I ensure that the record is changed to show the correct figure stated by the Prime Minister, and that the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House to explain why the record was changed and why his Government have failed to deliver on their pledge to increase numbers in further and higher education?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Prime Minister was misreported by Hansard. There was no request from the Prime Minister to alter the figure he gave the House. A correction will be published tomorrow.
Mr. David Lidington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know from the Order Paper, we are about to be asked to take a decision, without debate, on a new programme motion for consideration in Standing Committee of the Hunting Bill. Is it at all possible for time to be provided for a debate, or at least for a statement from a responsible Minister, as to the reasons why the Government are changing the terms of their programme? That is especially important, given that this is the first occasion on which the Government have had to change programming arrangements in that way. Surely, that demonstrates to everyone in the House that the idea that one can anticipate, in advance of a Standing Committee's proceedings, how many sittings will be needed for adequate consideration of a Bill is utterly mistaken.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will not then need to take it further.
Under the terms of the Sessional Order, Questions on supplementary programme motions to increase time for debate on a Bill are put forthwith. The Hunting Bill (Programme) (No. 3) motion extends the time for the Committee, so what is set out on the Order Paper is perfectly proper.
Mr. Leigh rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does my answer help the hon. Gentleman? Is he rising to speak further to that point of order?
Mr. Leigh: As ever, Mr. Speaker, you have been most helpful. However, given that every other programmed Bill
1086
as been ruthlessly dispatched in Standing Committee and sent back to us, I wonder why the Hunting Bill alone has been allowed to meander quietly around the English countryside of the Standing Committees. Has that happened because the Government do not really want the Bill ever to see the light of day?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If any clarification is given about the extra sittings of Standing Committee B, could it be made clear that the motion was introduced by agreement and upon representations from Conservative Members, and that that is the fundamental reason why the sittings are being reprogrammed?
Mr. Speaker: Once again, that is not a matter for me.
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have recently learned that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) — [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I need to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Dr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I learned today that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, has called for my resignation from the Committee, apparently, for opposing the majority report. May I ask you to confirm that members of Select Committees are appointed by the House to scrutinise the Government and that it is not appropriate for the Chairman of a Select Committee, whose job it is to try to create consensus, to make such a decision or, indeed, to express such an opinion? I apologise for giving you short notice of this point of order, but I notified the hon. Gentleman's office about half an hour ago that I hoped to raise the issue with you.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. He was appointed by the House, and that appointment will cease only by a decision of the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the Prime Minister yesterday set a two-year timetable for the abolition of the pound and the merger of this country's economy with those of continental Europe. Given that all the indications are that over the past two years public opinion has hardened from a two to one majority in favour of keeping the pound to more than three to one in favour of keeping the pound, have you received any notification of a ministerial statement, perhaps to be made by the Minister for Europe, on whether or not the hoped for turnaround could be funded—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been no such approach to me. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to rise, but you heard the altercation between those on the two Front Benches during the points of order on the

1087
Hunting Bill. May I ask you whether you could advise those Conservative Members who were party to the arrangements on those proceedings that they might consider their position, since the usual channels arrangement depends on the truth being told at all times? My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) has set out precisely what happened. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) should clarify the position at the Dispatch Box. Unless they do so today, there may be implications for the way in which the Bill is handled during the next week or two.
Mr. Speaker: I keep well away from matters regarding the usual channels.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be most grateful to you for your guidance. Would you be good enough to confirm to the House that the fact that the Hunting Bill (Programme) (No. 3) motion, on extending the time for debate, is not eligible for debate in no way precludes us from saying that, although the extension of time is welcome, it is patently inadequate for the consideration of the remaining new clauses and amendments to the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit rusty; that was not a point of order.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I have not had an opportunity to give you notice of this point of order, but the information has only just come into my possession. A little while ago, at Education and Employment questions, I asked a Minister about concerns involving the future funding of education business links and was told that the Secretary of State had made an announcement on the matter today.
I have since discovered that the Department issued a press notice on the matter at 10.25 this morning, only an hour before questions to the Department for Education and Employment were due to start. The information was sneaked out, and not in a parliamentary answer. Sufficient time was not given to Members on both sides to become aware of the press notice's contents, and that made it impossible for me and other Members to question the Minister about whether there had been a cut in funding. I believe that there has been a cut of at least 20 per cent. I should also have liked the opportunity to ask whether the additional funding announced will be ring-fenced or will be discretionary funding for the Learning and Skills
1088
Council. Is it not the case that you, Mr. Speaker, deprecate the practice of sneaking out in press notices information that should come to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have taken many points of order, and the business of the House takes priority.
Mr. Simpson: My point of order is about the business of the House which we shall have to consider shortly. As a member of the Committee considering the Hunting Bill, I am somewhat confused about how the matter has come back to the House. Presumably it was discussed by the usual channels, who presumably agreed that the House should authorise further time for the Bill's consideration in Committee. I do not understand where the points of conflict and contention arise when such agreements are brought back to the House as a matter of consensus. As a member of the Committee, I would welcome your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on where and how this practice should be properly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not worry about confusion; I get confused every day of the week. I cannot help him on this point.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does this matter not show the very reason why Programming Sub-Committees should not meet in secret? We have asked that they do not meet in secret, but the Government insist that they do. If the Committees were to be open, there would be no circumstances in which misunderstandings could take place.
Mr. Andrew Miller Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must stop the discussion now, because we are now getting into a debate. Let us move on to the main business.

HUNTING BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 20 December 2000],
That the Order of 20th December 2000 (Hunting Bill (Programme)) be amended by the substitution in paragraph 5 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) of the words 'Tuesday 13th February 2001' for the words 'Thursday 8th February 2001'. — [Mr. Touhig.]
Question agreed to.

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
1.32 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23rd January:

Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1.Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  2.Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Three o'clock.
  3.Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at a quarter past Four o'clock.
  4.Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of 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 programme motion to supplement or vary this order in relation to—

  (a)proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b)proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
  The motion proposes that the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting, with consideration concluding by 3.30 pm and Third Reading at 4.15 pm.
  The Bill gives companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000 early—in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that wish to use this measure will calculate the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7 November 2000—the day before the pre-Budget statement when the proposals were announced. They will be required to notify the Inland Revenue and pay the appropriate amount within 92 days of Royal Assent to the Bill. That effectively caps the national insurance contribution liability by reference to the company's share price on 7 November, so providing the company with certainty.
  Our debates in Committee were brief but purposeful. The Opposition introduced worthwhile amendments, and we were happy to accept the main thrust of some of them. In particular, we accepted that the deadline for sending the notification and paying the special charge under the Bill should be extended from 60 to 92 days. We tabled an amendment in Committee in response to the Opposition request that companies with a nil liability to the special contribution should not have to go to the trouble of lodging a formal notification within the 92-day deadline. Under our amendment, such companies will be deemed to have lodged formal notice within the set period. Both those changes will help to reduce the burden of
  1090
  compliance for companies and will allow all companies whose liability for the special contribution would be nil to qualify automatically.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I need to point out that we are dealing with the programme motion, not the Bill itself.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The point that I wanted to make was that all the Opposition amendments, except one, were withdrawn. Today we are introducing nine amendments which I will commend to the House, all of which respond to points raised in Committee with the intention of making the Bill more effective. None of them changes the policy intention that was fully discussed in one Committee sitting. In view of that, I believe that consideration and report can be concluded within the time set out in the programme motion. I commend it to the House.
  1.36 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: The House is aware that the Conservative Opposition disapprove of programme motions in principle for two reasons: first, because it is unknown what Members may have to contribute and, secondly, because it cannot easily be known what will be required in terms of a thorough analysis of and debate on proposals.
  The Minister correctly pointed out that there was a constructive exchange in Committee and that the Government have one way or another taken in most of the issues and amendments that the Opposition proposed. However, clause 3, for example, is highly technical and is about what the arrangements will be in relation to national insurance charges when companies are taken over. Yesterday I received the Government's redrafts, and it was the evening before I could check out their precise implications with lawyers. It is apparent that they contain drafting errors and so will need more attention than just a few minutes during the forthcoming debate.
  This is a classic example of circumstances in which, even with a relatively focused piece of legislation and with most of the material having been dealt with in Committee, the whole concept of programmed timetables does not work. If the programming arrangements are adhered to, the result will be not enough time for discussion of important, nitty-gritty clauses and, potentially, more time than needed on Third Reading later. Therefore, although we appreciate the Minister's acceptance of the various points that we raised, we do not feel that programming Bills is a good idea in principle. Even in this particular focused circumstance, yet again the motion is shown not to be delivering what is in the interests of the House and the country.
  1.38 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: The Government amendments conceded in Committee were helpful and it would be churlish to say that the Bill is not welcome. It caps liability at 7 November 2000, but is certainly not perfect and leaves much to be desired. Improvements can and should be made. Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs

  1091
  (Mr. Flight) mentioned, detailed further clauses have been tabled which need careful, rigorous scrutiny. The Bill deserves that scrutiny.
  Hon. Members must realise that the Bill impacts on many companies in most constituencies. Many hon. Members may want to speak about the merits or otherwise of the Bill and about the amendments that the Government have tabled.
  The Government have asserted that the quid pro quo for certainty—that is, fixing the employers' national insurance contributions for unapproved share option schemes as at 7 November 2000—is to fix that liability on that date with payments to be made shortly thereafter. There are other views which deserve consideration by and a response from Ministers. Some hon. Members will be concerned about bureaucracy and unnecessary Government expenditure. I have put to the Minister a satisfactory solution which would be simple and would provide value for money. Why not leave the liability open until exercise of the option, and then leave it open to companies to pay national insurance contributions either on the basis of the 7 November 2000 value or the value on the date on which the option is exercised? That is simple—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the argument about the contents of the Bill. We are discussing the programme motion.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Members are likely to want to raise matters of bureaucracy and of fairness to taxpayers. These are important matters that deserve long debate and significant consideration. We shall oppose the motion.
  1.40 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: It has become apparent that each programme motion raises different issues about the approach that the Government have taken to programming under "modernisation". We are embarking on a voyage of parliamentary discovery. It started with the idea that life should be made easier for parliamentarians, especially Labour Members. It was thought that everything should be done more quickly and that scrutiny should be truncated. The idea has developed from there.
  We see in each instance—this is a good case in point—that such an approach is entirely inappropriate to the parliamentary process. We now know—we should have known before—that each Bill is sui generis. It stands on its own and has a different character, history and personality. Members come to the Chamber with tales of what happened in their Committee: they may talk of consensuality, joviality and other good news.
  We find that the Government's explanation for a vicious truncation of the parliamentary process tends to be different in each case. In this instance, we are told that we are dealing with a relatively small and technical Bill, that there is not much to be discussed, and that what went on in Committee may or may not have been very productive. However, it is about 1.45 pm and we are debating an absurd motion which states that consideration on Report will be completed at 3.30 pm. That would be bad enough, but we know that the programme debate can run for 45 minutes.
  1092
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has said that he believes there will be a Division, and I will join him in that. I hope that I have the opportunity to do so. It is possible that we shall not even get to on to Report until 2.30 pm. The Government are generously giving us until 3.30 pm to complete consideration on Report.
  Optimists among Members may say, "There are only three groups of amendments to be considered." They may also say, "There are only"—as I count—"10 amendments to be considered." Even so, one hour divided by 10 gives us six minutes per amendment. I do not know what your view is, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we shall never know because you are not allowed to express it—but I suggest that six minutes is adequate for the House to consider an amendment to proposed law that deals with social security contributions and share options and will have a direct impact on many people's lives. Yet the Government have the gall and the arrogance to suggest that six minutes per amendment will be adequate.
  There are 660 Members, and from that membership we can take away the bloated payroll, which probably runs now at about 150. We can take away also the members of the bloated Opposition Front Bench, which probably accounts for another 100. There are probably about 400 Members who are entitled to express an independent view on these matters. If we divide six minutes by 400, we have an idea of the amount of time that the Government are suggesting each Member has, potentially, to participate in a debate on these matters. That is a reductio, but not ad absurdum.
  I am giving those figures to try to make the point that this is possibly the best—or, rather, the worst—example to date of the Government's view of the role of the parliamentary process, a Bill's Report stage and the role of the House of Commons in considering legislative proposals. Programme motions are simply legislative proposals, and embody what the Government think should happen. They are discussed in a Committee, and the whole House is here now to consider a particular programme motion. By my calculation—unless anyone wishes to challenge me—six minutes is the time that the Government are suggesting is available for each matter.
  If we voted on Report, the Government seem to suggest—again, by my calculation—that we would have 30 minutes, from 3.45 pm until 4.15 pm, for Third Reading. Third Reading provides an opportunity for all hon. Members to come together and give mature consideration to the totality of a Bill that they have discussed on Second Reading and which a privileged few have looked at in Committee. We have gathered together now to look at a particular Bill on Report. However, on Third Reading, all hon. Members who have been unable to participate so far can come to the House of Commons and say what they want about a Bill, knowing its final form.
  The Government are now telling us that we will have 30 minutes to do all of that; not 30 minutes each, but 30 minutes for the entire House of Commons to consider a piece of legislation on Third Reading. Surely, that illustrates better than most things thus far the absurdity and arrogance of the Government—as well as the cruelty that they are inflicting on the parliamentary process—

  1093
  in assuming that that is an adequate period in which to legislate on a matter which, although detailed and technical, is nevertheless important.
  Mr. Burnett: Because the matter is detailed and technical, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it deserves careful scrutiny? Having detailed and technical provisions tabled last night is unacceptable. Does he agree that there is not enough time for careful scrutiny of these important matters?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has led me into the next part of my analysis. I gave a rather dry consideration of the inadequacy of the numbers involved. However, the hon. Gentleman made a valid point, from which two inter-related points follow.
  First, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) both made the point that the Government assumed that the Committee stage would be completed at a certain point, only to introduce further provisions and peremptorily insist that the House deal with them with almost no notice. That is difficult, and not only for ordinary Members of Parliament. For goodness sake, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs is a world expert on these matters, but even he is struggling a bit. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon is an intellectual giant of the House, but he is struggling. What hope is there of us poor laymen, who have come to the House to try and grapple with the matter on behalf of our constituents, dealing with the technicalities involved?
  Mr. Burnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of another example of this sort of detailed legislation being rushed—the Finance Act 1998? Detailed amendments were tabled on stamp duty, reserve tax and anti-avoidance measures. However, they were wrong and the Government lost revenue to the tune of £1 billion or £1.5 billion because of the inadequacy of debate and scrutiny.
  Mr. Forth: I am not surprised or shocked by that. The hon. Gentleman strengthened his point and illustrated it well. We run that risk if we are rolled over by the Government, as they are now attempting to do.
  The motion is surrounded by an accumulation of negatives and, as far as I can see, no positives whatever. The time made available to the House for considering the Bill on Report and Third Reading has been compressed. Almost no notice was given—and that is true not just for hon. Members. As has already been said, with such a Bill one would have thought there should be an opportunity for legitimate representations to be made by outside bodies to those of us who are privileged to be here, so that we can learn from them and understand their concerns. There is no such opportunity, given the Bill's time scale.
  My query about all this is why the Government persist in offering wording such as:
  "Proceedings on Consideration shall…be brought to a conclusion at half past Three o'clock."
  What is the hurry? It would be bad enough if the Government had insisted, as they do in respect of the Committee stage, that we would be given, say, six hours
  1094
  to consider the Bill on Report, or four hours, or whatever. Today, rightly, as usual, Mr. Speaker generously allowed some time for business questions. The Government are lucky that there was no Division on the grubby deal that was done on the Hunting Bill. By setting a time of 3.30 pm for the conclusion of proceedings, rather than allowing us a specific amount of time, the Government have made us victims of the vagaries of the parliamentary process.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: We are fortunate that there was not a Government statement, a private notice question or a response to some disaster in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—
  Mr. Forth: Or in the Government.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed—there is one of those every day. Any of those eventualities would have required the attention of the House, and would have further compressed the time available for these matters to be discussed.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. By taking such an approach—tabling motions that specify a particular time of the clock at which matters must be concluded—the Government make us a potential victim of what Harold Macmillan described as "events". Events do impinge on the parliamentary process, as indeed they should and they must.
  The Government make the crude assumption that we will be able to dispatch the Report stage properly by 3.30, regardless of what may have happened during the parliamentary day up until that point. They go on to compound the felony by proposing that Third Reading will be finished by "quarter past Four o'clock." They do not give us a certain amount of time to consider the matter, bad enough though that would be. They make matters worse by saying that proceedings will end, willy-nilly, at a particular time of the clock.
  The Government obviously take the view that it does not matter what may have happened up till now today. Regardless of any of that—regardless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, of statements, private notice questions being granted and the length of time allowed by Mr. Speaker for business questions—we will complete consideration by 3.30 pm.
  That cannot be right. It cannot be a proper parliamentary process. I regret to say that it illustrates yet again the approach that the Government take to Parliament—one of utter contempt. It could just be a misunderstanding of Parliament, I suppose, because some members of the Government have not been in the House very long. Some of them make no secret of the fact that, having got here, they want to leave the building as early and as frequently as possible. Although that may be a family-friendly approach, it does not exactly help the role of the House of Commons in giving proper scrutiny to legislation and holding the Government to account.
  We are in a real mess, and the motion illustrates that all too well.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am genuinely shocked, even by the standards of this arrogant and inconsiderate

  1095
  Administration, that Ministers apparently envisage a Third Reading debate lasting a maximum of 45 minutes. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Government expect any significant contribution from Back Benchers in that allotted time?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. I had calculated 30 minutes for Third Reading, but we shall wait and see. The Government are assuming that their Back Benchers will play no part in the debate at all, as they increasingly do.
  There are currently no Government Back Benchers in the Chamber. That is a sad reflection of what has happened to Government Members of Parliament and Government Back Benchers. I wonder what their constituents think they are doing at this time on a Thursday? I leave that for their constituents to muse on. They are certainly not representing them in the House of Commons—that we do know because the physical evidence is plain to see. I leave that as a matter of speculation.
  I had intended to go on and comment on the further proceedings on the Bill, which are alluded to in the motion, but I am aware that a number of my parliamentary colleagues are present, in their place, representing their constituents—
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I will, but I am anxious to conclude.
  Mr. Jack: I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would develop his further point. As the Financial Secretary said, nine Government amendments have been tabled, which means that we are allowed to consider each for 10 minutes. Such timing is sparse in respect of the complex matters that are involved. Does my right hon. Friend think that we have adequate time to consider each of the amendments?
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is generous. I calculated that we were allowed six minutes for each amendment. I shall not repeat my rough calculation of how the time will be squeezed by a combination of events, including votes and other considerations.
  I shall conclude my remarks, as I am aware of the pressure from the large number of Opposition Members who want to contribute and I do not want to hog the available time. I believe that the motion is probably the worst example yet of the results of the ill-thought-out and ill-considered so-called modernisation process that has inflicted such a disgraceful programming scheme. I hope that it will illustrate to everybody that that scheme is an unworkable and unjustifiable outrage that should be dropped as soon as possible. In the meantime, I hope that I will get a chance to vote against the motion.
  1.56 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am not against programming in principle and have argued on a number of occasions that it has some merit. However, I agreed today with almost everything that he said.
  1096
  A first-rate Minister has had to introduce a third-rate Bill. It is a shoddy measure that has been torn apart by the clear-headedness of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is probably the only hon. Member who understands what it is all about. It is a small and technical Bill, but as has been pointed out, it affects a large number of people. Everybody agrees that it is flawed. I think that the Financial Secretary will admit that that is the case and confirm that clause 3 is still deficient and needs further attention. Currently, he appears to be neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me. I cannot tell what he is expressing, but I suspect that it is agreement.
  We are now stuck with an awkward situation and we do not have much time to try to sort it out. Programming makes life no better. The Bill will go to the other place, where the Government will take a bit more time to try to sort it out and table the necessary amendments. Their attitude is clear. They put a Bill into play in the House of Commons to get it running. It does not matter how shoddy it is or how much it is shredded in Committee. They get it out of here on the back of a programme motion and then sort it out in the House of Lords, where the political temperature is a bit lower and they will not have to deal with so much flak. I do not think that that is a good way of making legislation, and neither does anybody else, except the Executive, and an arrogant Executive at that.
  As I said, I would not have been against programming this measure in principle. If it is to be used, however, hon. Members must have something in return in terms of better pre-legislative scrutiny. I cannot believe that the Bill would have been brought before the House in its current condition if it had been given thoroughgoing pre-legislative scrutiny and had been considered by a Committee that could ask detailed questions of the few people in the country who understand the subject with which it deals.
  Programming has been introduced to the House without anything being given in return. Scrutiny of legislation has not been improved through other means and no commitment has been made to improve pre-legislative scrutiny. That is why I disapprove of what the Government have done in respect of programming. I oppose not the principle, but the fact that it was introduced without any sense of balance in respect of better scrutiny of legislation in the House of Commons.
  Let us cast our minds back to the last shift in power that was as dramatic as the adoption of programming. Timetabling was introduced in the late 19th century, but was accompanied by a big quid pro quo: Supply days. The current Government have decided to introduce a major shift in the way in which legislation is scrutinised without offering anything in return to the House of Commons to try to improve legislation or demonstrate to the wider public that they are doing their job properly. Anyone viewing the Chamber today—and I hope that the cameras will be permitted to pan the Labour Benches for just a moment—will see that absolutely no scrutiny of the Executive is going on. This is really not an adequate performance.
  As I said, Supply days were introduced in return for acceptance of Balfour's railway timetable; but when we accepted Beckett's railway timetable we were given nothing in return, which is why I shall vote against the motion.
  2 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join my colleagues in opposing the motion.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I am opposed in principle to so-called programme motions.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Guillotines.
  Mr. Howarth: Indeed, they are effectively guillotines. The fact that they are undemocratic, curtailing Members' opportunity to hold the Executive to account, has been amply demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester.
  Today's Order Paper illustrates the fatuous nature of programme motions. It features no fewer than three guillotines—if I may bow to the description preferred by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—and I think the first justifies our complaints. In the motion that we are discussing, and also in the others, the Government seek to impose not so much time limits as a schedule specifying the time by which we shall be deemed to have completed consideration of what are, in some instances, complex matters. The first motion, for example, shows the fatuousness of the original proposal that proceedings on the Hunting Bill should be completed by a certain time, because the Government must now return to the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I realise that he could not be here for the opening speeches, but we are discussing a specific programme motion relating to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill, and he must confine his remarks to that.
  Mr. Howarth: I was trying to illustrate my opposition to programme motions in general, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I take your point.
  I wonder how many more times the Government will come back to the House and ask us to amend an earlier programme motion. Clearly, that will not happen in this case, as the motion we are discussing relates only to consideration and Third Reading—and, of course, to consideration of Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords. I must confess that I am not sure what all that means: the wording is couched in references to such and such paragraphs of the ghastly Sessional Order that is the fount of all the misery we are having to endure as a result of the Government's determination to curtail debate in the House.
  We are discussing an extremely important Bill. Although I have considerable experience of the City and international banking, I do not claim to be an expert in the particularities of the share-options issues that lie behind the Bill. Fortunately for us—not just Conservative Members, but Members throughout the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has such expertise. He bears testimony to the value of Members who have worked in the real world and bring experience of it to the House. Such experience is especially likely to inform debates on such matters as share options, in which my hon. Friend is extremely well versed. It could also be said that his expertise makes the
  1098
  case for Members' maintaining familiarity with such issues by having outside interests—but I will not pursue that point.
  The Bill constitutes the Government's second attempt to reform their own legislation. Having failed to produce a sensible measure earlier, they have had to return to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that the Minister is an extremely good Minister; it is just a shame that he is in the wrong party. But the fact that he is such a good Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems unable to concentrate on the motion. Interesting and complimentary though some of his asides have been, they are not relevant to the matter before us.
  Mr. Howarth: I hesitate to compliment you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I entirely accept your guidance.
  This is a complex matter that should have proper scrutiny. I object in principle to programme motions, and I object in particular to this one.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give some thought to how such a first-rate Minister could end up introducing such a shoddy Bill and still be unable to get it straight? Does my hon. Friend think that programming is the right way to try to force through such a Bill in these circumstances?
  Mr. Howarth: Such matters will always be conducted for the convenience of Governments. We should not forget that there were guillotine motions when we were in government. There will always be rational arguments that will persuade Ministers to support guillotine motions, or programme motions, as we now call them.
  I am sure that, even if the Minister wanted to spend more time properly assessing and discussing the issues with hon. Members, he would nevertheless be under pressure not to do so, but to comply with the requirements of the sewers of Westminster, as they are known collectively—not the Minister, of course—to ensure that the Government get through their business as quickly as possible, regardless of whether it has had proper scrutiny in the House.
  2.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and to the House for not being here at the start of this important item of business. I was able, by another means, to follow some of the Minister's introduction to the programme motion.
  I am disappointed that a piece of business dealing with social security and national insurance issues should be introduced by a Treasury Minister. Up to now, most business of this nature has proceeded on an amicable, nay, even consensual, basis in the House of Commons. Since I have been in the House, I have been involved, from the Government and the Opposition Benches, with five Finance Bills and each one has managed to achieve its objectives by agreements through the usual channels. Some of the contents of those Bills have touched on, or dealt with, the issues in this measure.
  However, we are now debating a programme motion on a matter that is clearly not of great controversy between the two Front Benches, in terms of the principle,

  1099
  at this stage. However, the drafting and objectives of the Bill require further debate, and I shall come to those points in a moment. It is sad that the programme motion breaks away from an important point of tradition on the way in which financial matters such as these have always been dealt with.
  I had always thought that the reason for introducing a programme motion—or guillotine motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said—was that the Government of the day had been filibustered or were in danger of not completing their business. Under the procedures introduced, and in the context of this type of measure, that risk is not there. The Government seem to be on auto-pilot, in that we have to go through this process every time a piece of business is introduced. There is no selectivity. There is no trust between the two sides of the House that some business will pass unimpeded, without the need to impose this rigidity on us.
  Why do I object to the programme motion before us today? The debate is scheduled to end at 2.17 pm. By 3.30 this afternoon, or half-past three of the clock as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) more correctly describes it, we are supposed to have considered nine detailed Government amendments. They may improve the Bill.
  Mr. Tyrie: How will we know?
  Mr. Jack: That is a good question, which leads me to my central point. The Government amendments amount to a fundamental rewrite of clause 3. Yet there is inadequate time for us to probe more thoroughly the failings of any pre-legislative consultation exercise on the Bill. In earlier proceedings, the Government made much of the fact that the Bill had been introduced because of representations from third parties. There is not enough time for us to discover what went wrong between the receipt of those representations, the original drafting and the effective rewrite of clause 3. There is insufficient time to consider the failings in policy development or draftsmanship.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend know of any Bill since the Queen's Speech that has been subject to the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure? Would it not be better for more Bills to be subject to such scrutiny? Perhaps they would not need to be timetabled if that happened.
  Mr. Jack: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, although pre-legislative scrutiny provides an opportunity for technical measures such as the Bill to be considered in detail, it should never replace proper, thorough debate and scrutiny in the Chamber and in Committee. A Bill will be introduced on capital allowances shortly. Although it will have received a great deal of input from outside opinion, that does not remove the right and role of the House to scrutinise.
  Given the detail in some Government amendments, which I am sure my hon. Friend has considered, there is insufficient opportunity to consider their implications. Although is not right to debate Government amendment No. 3 now, let me just point out that it introduces proposed new section 4A, which establishes labyrinthine
  1100
  interconnections. It would take a good two hours for even an excellent Financial Secretary to explain, for example, how the Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the various connections between sections 135 and 136 relate to the proposals.
  The wording in the amendment is tortuous. The tax law rewrite exercise has shone little light on it. I should have liked at least a quarter of an hour to probe the Financial Secretary about the reason for such tortuous language. I should like another hour to take him, with meticulous care, through some of the reasoning behind rewriting so much of the Bill.
  An advantage of Report is that it gives hon. Members who have not served on the Standing Committee the opportunity to hear in detail the reasons for tabling further amendments.
  Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the way in which matters are proceeding, with a probable Division shortly, there will be an hour in total to consider nine or 10 important amendments? That leaves six minutes for hon. Members to discuss each amendment. My right hon. Friend will get less time than that. That does not approach the amount of time that he estimates he requires.
  Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is right. If we take account of other matters that need consideration, there is even less time than he estimates. It is bad form to deal with detailed technical matters in that way.
  Pepper v. Hart is often cited in the context of detailed Bills. It gives the legal profession the opportunity to use our proceedings in court or other tribunals to help to show the true meaning of a measure. If we have only six minutes to discuss each amendment, and the Financial Secretary wants to go into detail about some of them, those who seek to use the facility of Pepper v. Hart will have scant information on which to draw.
  For those reasons, the time allocated for the amendments is inadequate, and I shall have no hesitation in joining my hon. Friends in the Lobby to oppose the motion.
  Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 124.

  Division No.111]

  [2.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Borrow, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  (Dunfermline E)

  Austin, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Banks, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Berry, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  1101

  Clapham, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jamieson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Coleman, Iain

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Colman, Tony

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cox, Tom

  Joyce, Eric

  Cranston, Ross

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cummings, John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Lammy, David

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dawson, Hilton

  Laxton, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lepper, David

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lock, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  McCabe, Steve

  Dowd, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McDonnell, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McFall, John

  Edwards, Huw

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ennis, Jeff

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Etherington, Bill

  McNulty, Tony

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Fisher, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Follett, Barbara

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Martlew, Eric

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Maxton, John

  Galloway, George

  Meale, Alan

  Gardiner, Barry

  Merron, Gillian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin

  Goggins, Paul

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grocott, Bruce

  (Aberavon)

  Hain, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hanson, David

  Norris, Dan

  Healey, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hendrick, Mark

  Olner, Bill

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Heppell, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Pearson, Ian

  Hill, Keith

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Plaskitt, James

  Hoey, Kate

  Pollard, Kerry

  1102

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pope, Greg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stringer, Graham

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Prosser, Gwyn

  (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, John

  Truswell, Paul

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roy, Frank

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tynan, Bill

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  (Swansea W)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Stevenson, George

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Baldry, Tony

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fraser, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy

  Gale, Roger

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bercow, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gray, James

  Brady, Graham

  Green, Damian

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Greenway, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hayes, John

  Burnett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Collins, Tim

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Cran, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Leigh, Edward

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Letwin, Oliver

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fallon, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  1103

  Luff, Peter

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moore, Michael

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John

  Norman, Archie

  Tredinnick, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Trend, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tyler, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Walter, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Prior, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Rendel, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton- Brown.

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Question accordingly agreed to. Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23rd January:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1.Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  2.Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Three o'clock.
  3.Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at a quarter past Four o'clock.
  4.Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of 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 programme motion to supplement or vary this order in relation to—

  (a)proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b)proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill
    Clause 1

      NOTICES RELATING TO SHARE OPTIONS ACQUIRED BEFORE 19TH MAY 2000
      2.31 pm
      Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—
      '(7) For the purposes of this Act only, a right to acquire relevant shares will be deemed to give rise to a liability of nil under section 2 below.
      (8) In subsection (7) above relevant shares are shares which on 7th November 2000 were neither listed on a recognised stock exchange nor traded on a recognised investment exchange.'.
      I should like first to declare that I am a director of companies with outstanding option schemes, none of which are covered by the Bill's provisions. More importantly, in the past 15 months, I have been participating in a major study among leading members of the industry to determine how the United Kingdom can achieve higher levels of venture capital investment in new businesses. Although the study has focused on a very wide range of issues, I think that it has concluded that the issue of options and the UK options tax regimes are absolutely central to understanding the performance differential between the United Kingdom and the United States. As I shall explain later, the Bill is an important part of addressing that issue.
      Although Opposition Members are happy that the Government accepted most of the key points that we made in Committee, we are particularly unhappy that, even in the Government's second attempt, their proposals to deal with takeover and roll-over situations are not the correct ones to fulfil what we perceive to be Ministers' intentions.
      In Committee, we welcomed the Government's deeming amendment, which dealt with our point that a lot of time and money would have been wasted if a determination—or deeming—that companies are not subject to the special national insurance contribution liability is not made automatically on the due date. The amendment would also help greatly to avoid potential unfairness to smaller and foreign companies that were perhaps not even aware of the new special NIC charge on options issued between April 1999 and May 2000. However, although the Government's change is welcome, we believe that there is still a grey area and the potential for problems which could very easily be avoided.
      The issue is whether options relate to shares deemed to be readily convertible assets—which is the key phrase. In the Government's arrangements, if the option is under water or the shares in question are not readily convertible assets, there would be no special NIC liability. The situation applying last November, however, is old history. For the purposes of the deeming provision, therefore, our amendment proposes not defining shares as readily convertible assets if they were not listed or traded on a recognised stock exchange or market on 7 November 2000.

      1105
      If amendment No. 10 is not accepted, a potential problem is that private companies will assume that they are covered by the deeming provision. Consequently, they could fail to provide due notice. Those companies could become involved in a subsequent, never-ending debate with the Revenue on whether the assets were readily convertible assets on 7 November. If the Revenue found that the companies' shares were readily convertible assets, they would have forgone the opportunity of availing themselves of the Government's relieving provision.
      Mr. Michael Jack: My hon. Friend said in his opening remarks that he had spent time in consultation with companies that use share option. Was amendment No. 10 therefore also born of practical considerations and his discussions with those companies?
      Mr. Flight: Yes, it was. I have endeavoured to consult very fully on all the Bill's clauses both with members of the venture capital industry and with lawyers specialising in share options, with the simple and pragmatic purpose of trying to create a regime that is good and not damaging for the United Kingdom economy.
      The amendment's proposed arrangements would affect only this legislation and are not intended to address the wider issue of how to define a readily convertible asset. They are not intended to have knock-on effects on other legislative provisions.
      There is a grey area when a private company is approaching flotation and its flotation date and market price have not been established. However, I am sure that the House will agree that, for the particular purposes of this Bill, setting 7 November as the target cut-off date is just as realistic a quid pro quo as that enshrined in the Bill—which tells employees to take a gamble and pay the special NIC charge so that companies do not subsequently have excessive NIC liabilities that could not be met.
      The amendment is a very practical proposal. It would have minimal revenue implications and help to prevent the possibility of unfairness and wasted time.
      Mr. John Burnett: Liberal Democrat Members support the amendment, which is a move towards simplicity. If an asset is not listed on the specified date, it would not be deemed a readily convertible asset, and therefore not be subject to the special charge to national insurance contributions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the amendment. Surely the thrust of the legislation is that the special NIC charge should not affect unapproved share option schemes in private companies. By definition, a private company is one that restricts the transfer or sale of its shares.
      I am a solicitor, and I specialised in taxation matters. However, I do not practise as such now. I also did not do an awful lot of work on approved or unapproved share option schemes. I spent some time in the shares valuation division, and as I said in Committee, share valuation is very much an art, not a science. A lot of deeming takes place and there is enormous scope for disagreement and negotiation.
      The Government are content for shares that are not readily convertible to escape the special national insurance contribution liability. I hope that the Minister
      1106
      will confirm that and elaborate in detail on the Government's objections to the amendment. Do they fear that it may, in some obscure way, lead to tax avoidance? I do not believe that it will, but I will wait to hear from the Minister before offering any rebuttal. Is their point that it will discourage listing, and therefore investment?
      If the Minister rejects the amendment, I hope that he will give compelling reasons, because I consider it to be worth while, simple and straightforward.
      Mr. Jack: I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a company that has both approved and non-approved share option schemes, although it does not fall under the scope of the amendment.
      I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the amendment would bring clarity, but if I were in the Minister's shoes, following what the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said, I would want, if I intended to reject the amendment, to cover areas such as anti-avoidance and what would happen if people with share options in a non-quoted company knew that a takeover was coming and that convertibility would come into play.
      Mr. Flight: The amendment relates to history, so it has nothing to do with tax avoidance measures that people might get up to in the future. It relates purely to the position on 7 November 2000.
      Mr. Jack: I posed hypothetical questions in the hope of getting the Minister to explain his position. He may offer us emotive arguments. My hon. Friend's central point of clarity of purpose makes the amendment attractive. People need to know where they stand in this complex area, and the amendment is very helpful.
      The amendment refers to "a recognised stock exchange", and most people would understand that, but "a recognised investment exchange", to which it also refers, is a little more obscure. It is sometimes hard to keep up with all the newly emerging markets. Will the Minister give us his views in careful and meticulous order? I hope that he will simply say that the Government accept the amendment, but we certainly want to know his reasons either way.
      2.45 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am happy to provide the House with that explanation. I do not believe that the amendment represents a simplification, as Opposition Members have suggested. Indeed, it would introduce a new and unhelpful complication.
      The national insurance and PAYE rules on share options were aligned in 1999, so that from that date the PAYE rules effectively determine the national insurance liability. PAYE applies only to shares and options that are readily convertible assets. Shares not falling within that description are not taxed under the PAYE rules, nor are they liable to national insurance charges.
      The amendment would narrow the definition of readily convertible assets, but only for the purposes of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs

      1107
      (Mr. Flight) confirmed that he did not intend to change the definition in other parts of the system. That is an unnecessary complication.
      Mr. Jack: What is the definition of a readily convertible asset and how does the amendment narrow it?
      Mr. Timms: What I can best do is to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Inland Revenue website, which I have no doubt he visits frequently, and in particular to tax bulletin issue 36, which explains the matter in great detail. Of course, a readily convertible asset is one that can be converted to cash and—
      Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, when a Member of the House asks a straightforward question, to refer him to a technical asset that is not immediately available to Members to find the information that is required?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The right hon. Gentleman has long experience of the House and is a former Minister, and he should know that it is not a matter for the Chair how a Minister chooses to answer a question. It is a matter for debate.
      Mr. Timms: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a little hurt by the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, as I was trying to be helpful to him in explaining that a readily convertible asset is one that can be readily converted to cash and is therefore appropriate to be taxed. That is well understood. The amendment would narrow that so that a share in any unlisted company would be deemed not to be a readily convertible asset. To have two definitions floating around in different parts of the tax system would be an unwelcome and unhelpful complication.
      Mr. Burnett: Would the Minister be minded to accept an amendment that did not exclude this amendment, allowing the definition to include shares that are
      "neither listed on a recognised stock exchange nor traded on a recognised investment exchange"?
      Mr. Timms: No, certainly not, because that would substantially broaden the concept of assets that cannot be readily converted, which would substantially reduce the tax take in a wide range of circumstances.
      In practice, the amendment would allow all those companies that on 7 November 2000 were in the process of floating to avoid liability under the Bill, as well as those that had trading arrangements in place.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said when he moved the amendment that he did not think that it would cost very much. My estimate is that it would cost some millions of pounds, as a significant number of companies required to make a special payment under the Bill would not need to do so if the amendment were passed. I can understand why some people might lobby for that change, but I do not think that it would be right to introduce it.
      Mr. Flight: The latter part of 2000 was a period when stock markets were weak and there were very few
      1108
      flotations. Given that the amendment deals with history, the argument that significant revenue is at risk does not stand up.
      Mr. Timms: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is true that the shares of a number of companies were lower in the period to which he refers than they had been previously, but the liability faced by those companies under the Bill is therefore less than it would otherwise have been. For that reason, Opposition Members might wish to draw attention to the Government's generosity in setting the relevant date at 7 November. If the amendment were agreed, a substantial number of companies would avoid liability.
      In allowing companies whose shares were not readily convertible assets on 7 November last year to pay no national insurance on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000, the Government are already offering considerable relief. Under the existing class 1 rules, many companies would go on the list before the options were exercised and would be liable to class 1 national insurance. The Bill allows all companies whose shares were not readily convertible assets on 7 November last year to be exempt from both class 1 and the special contribution.
      I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), about avoidance. As I have said, a number of companies that will have to pay under the Bill as it stands would find, if the amendment were passed, that they did not have to pay anything.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon also said that valuations for unlisted companies are difficult to finalise. I can tell him that the shares valuation division of the Inland Revenue can now help companies with their valuations. However, we made it clear in Committee—and I emphasise the point again to the House—that if valuations are produced by the company on a reasonable basis, and if the valuation eventually agreed with the employer is higher, the company will be able to pay the difference without falling back into the class 1 rules.
      Mr. Burnett: The Financial Secretary said that he was concerned about the amendment because it would exempt companies in the process of flotation, and those with trading arrangements in place. Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the latter point? That would be of considerable assistance to practitioners and people with unapproved share option schemes, as well as to the House.
      Mr. Timms: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means. If a company's shares are not regarded as readily convertible assets there is no liability, irrespective of the reasons for that judgment. However, I should be happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing if he would care to drop me a line.
      From 7 November 2000, companies will have 92 days after the Bill receives Royal Assent to make a judgment as to whether their shares are readily convertible. As was explained in Committee, the Bill contains appeal provisions that would allow a company that had made a wrong call about whether its shares were readily convertible to pay the special contribution after the 92-day period, as long as that decision had been made on a reasonable basis. That provides an important safeguard for companies.
      Mr. Jack: I hope that the Financial Secretary will help me on a technical point. In the case of a company that had flotation plans in train and was therefore deemed to have readily convertible assets, what would happen if the flotation was pulled the day before or the day after the valuation date? What would be the position of that company?
      Mr. Timms: If the right hon. Gentleman comes across a company in that position, he should advise it to contact the Inland Revenue for advice. I am confident that such a company would be given clear guidance about how to proceed.
      I see no reason, simply for the purposes of this Bill, to impose an arbitrary limit to rules on the definition of readily convertible assets that are well understood and established. I think that that would be an unnecessary, unwelcome and costly complication to the tax system. In the interests of simplicity, as well as for the other reasons that I have advanced, I ask the House not to support the amendment.
      Mr. Flight: In view of the guillotine motion, I do not consider the amendment a sufficiently important issue of principle on which to detain the House. However, the Government have introduced a special national insurance contribution charge, and they do not mind the fact that they are addressing a problem of their own making by means of a special form of tax charge. The amendment proposes a special, one-off clarification of readily convertible assets, purely for the purposes of the Bill. It is incorrect for the Minister to object to the fact that we are applying the same principle as the Government are applying.
      The Minister made a point about trading arrangements that I do not consider correct. The amendment specifically refers to trading on a recognised exchange. In the absence of the amendment, many companies and Inland Revenue staff will spend a lot of time discussing whether the shares of a limited number were readily convertible assets on 7 November 2000. In most cases, it will be found that they were not. The Government's tax take will be very small as a result, but the costs in terms of time imposed on the companies involved and the Inland Revenue will be considerably greater.
      In arriving at that judgment, I have taken heed of the practicalities. It is a pity that the Government do not see fit to accept the amendment, especially as the Bill is designed to be a pragmatic measure, relieving a problem of the Government's making. However, for the sake of time, I shall not press the matter to a vote.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      EFFECT OF NOTICE UNDER SCHEDULE 1
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 34, leave out from "amount" to end of line 36 and insert—
      'which (in accordance with the provisions of section 135(3)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) would have been taken to be the amount of the gain realised by an exercise in full of that right immediately before the time of its assignment or release.'
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8.
      Mr. Timms: These amendments would amend the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 that deal with the assignment or release of an option that has been settled under the Bill. As I said in Committee, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for identifying a loophole in the Bill as previously drafted.
      Clauses 2 and 3 deal with the somewhat complex issue of exchanges of options. Our clear intention was to protect the national insurance liability if a settled option were to be subsequently rolled over—or exchanged for another option—or assigned or released, and the new option were to be of a higher value at the time of the roll-over.
      We have looked again at clause 3, as I said in Committee we would, and amended it to ensure that it is effective to deal with the range of situations that may arise. It remains complex. I do not seek to persuade the House that this is a straightforward matter. It is not. It deals with multiple roll-overs and a situation in which options are assigned or released for a mixture of benefits such as options plus cash. Most companies will not need to use the provisions in clause 3, which deal only with roll-overs. For those that do, special guidance will be available so that they can be confident about how the legislation will operate.
      3 pm
      The amendment leaves undisturbed the class 1 liability on the excess value given for the settled option to prevent the kind of manipulation to which the earlier drafting could have been open and to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs drew our attention.
      I commend this technical, but valuable, group of amendments to the House
      Mr. Flight: Amendment No. 1 indeed addresses the point that we raised in Committee—that the wording of the Bill as drafted opened up scope for avoidance. By the substitution of the term "gain" for the "gross proceeds" to which the original drafting referred, the mistake is corrected.
      Our main objections are to amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. As we pointed out in Committee, clause 3 deals with the complex territory of takeovers, in which people have options in a company that is taken over and receive alternative options. We attempted to draw the Government's attention to what we felt was misdrafting and a misunderstanding of the implications of certain parts of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
      It is our perception that those problems have not been grappled with. What is the Government's intention in relation to takeovers and switches of options? We have assumed that common sense will prevail and that the intention is that if people receive a like-for-like option and the value is the same, the position is essentially neutral and no national insurance contribution liability is activated. Obviously, if more valuable options are granted in lieu of the existing options, there is a changed situation, and an NIC liability should apply on the value enhancement, preferably when the options are exercised; or if in place of the existing options people receive a mixture of new options and cash, there will be NIC liability on the cash that has been paid.

      1111
      It seems that the basic flaw that we pointed out in Committee has been carried over in amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The Bill should provide that if there is an enhancement element in any option exchange, it should be subject to NIC on exercise, as we proposed in Committee. Otherwise, the new option has the benefit of any exemption on the old option.
      The technical background is that NIC charges on options are explicitly linked to income tax charges under section 135 of the 1988 Act. Section 4(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 charges NIC on any gain on which the earner is chargeable to tax by virtue of section 135. This charges tax on the exercise, assignment or release of an option and provides that if people exchange one option for another they are not charged tax on the value on the new option, but are charged tax if any other consideration—cash, for example—is given at the same time. The new option should be treated as if it were the original option and the employee had paid the due amount to acquire the new option equal to what he paid for the original one, less any consideration taxed on that exchange and paid at the time of the exchange. So it is a little misleading in amendment No. 3 to describe section 136 of the 1988 Act as
      "charge to tax on roll-over".
      The relevant section moderates a tax charge which would otherwise have applied under section 135.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 expressly require section 136 to be disregarded in certain circumstances which, prima facie, appear to require a class 1 charge under section 4 of the 1992 Act under which there would not be an income tax charge. We are of the view that, technically, the provision is not correct as it stands.
      Amendment No. 2 deals with the assignment or release of an option on which NIC can still be charged on the excess of any buy-out consideration which exceeds the inherent gain in the option. That is reasonably sensible in the light of amendment No. 1. However, amendment No. 2 also seems to provide that in the circumstances of an assignment or a release, we can ignore section 136 for these purposes and apply clause 2(3) to charge national insurance on the excess of the buy-out consideration over the lower of either the inherent gain in the old option or the inherent gain in the new option. That would only ever catch an extra cash consideration on the roll-over: if the new option was an enhancement, proposed new section 3A(a) would treat the non-cash consideration as equal to the gain in the old option as the lower of the two gains plus any cash, and the clause 2(3) charge would be only on that amount less the gain in the old option.
      The net effect of the wording of the Government's amendment is that if no extra cash is offered on a roll-over but there is still an enhancement element, there will be a nil charge under clause 2(3). I question whether that is what the Government wanted. It is not a bad result, but the drafting that arrives at this, I suspect unintended, result is incomprehensible.
      We think that there is an error in the drafting of amendment No. 3. Clause 3(4) preserves the right to charge national insurance on replacement options in specific circumstances, but amendment No. 3 provides that, on a roll-over, section 136 will apply to the new option only to the extent that it is over additional shares—that is, that the exchange is an enhancement. The intention appears to be that any enhancement element would be
      1112
      referred back to clause 3(4) and charged national insurance on eventual exercise. Is that the Government's intention? If it is, fair enough.
      The problem is that if there is no enhancement in the exchange, the wording also implies that section 136 will not apply to the roll-over, where only so much of section 136 applies as relates to additional shares and the new option, prima facie, gives rise to an NIC charge under the 1992 Act because, with section 136 ignored, there would have been a charge for income tax purposes under section 135.
      I was upset that it was not possible to re-table on Report the amendments that we tabled in Committee on these complex issues. As we see it, our amendments address what the Government are seeking to achieve and what should be achieved, whereas the Government's amendments, sadly, do not.
      On amendment No. 3, specifically, if the old option was covered by a notice under clause 1, there would be a nil class 1 liability and if not, there would be an accelerated employers' and employees' class 1 liability on the option exchange. So there is a mismatch between the national insurance charge and income tax; the Government are penalising "correct" parity non-enhanced option exchanges for companies which do not gamble on their share price. We assume that that is not the Government's intention; if it is, it is not very prudent. We shall be interested to hear whether that is the case. New subsection (4A) in clause 3 is expressed to be subject to new subsection (5), but that does not help the situation either.
      We want to hear the Government's counter-arguments. If they think that we have not technically understood this nightmare labyrinth and the fact that, in essence, there is no 1992 Act charge because such a charge is moderated by statutory regulations; and if they are thinking of relying on such regulations, we would advise them against. Not even the Revenue pretends to apply the regulations in that territory, because they were wrongly drafted. The Government should correct or withdraw their amendments and reconsider the arrangements that we proposed in Committee.
      Amendment No. 3 should read
      "leave out from 'or' in line 7 to the end of line of line 31 and add, '(4A) Subject to subsection (5) below, a determination under subsection (4) above may be made in respect of a replacement right or a subsequent replacement right in either case buying a right to which a notice under section 1 applies only—
      (a) at a time when, but for this Act, a liability to pay class 1 contributions would otherwise have arisen in respect of that right; and
      (b) to the extent that it is a right to acquire additional shares'."
      The matter will clearly have to be dealt with in the Lords, but, in short, I ask the Minister to reconsider in depth the drafting of the amendments—especially that of amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which do not achieve what we believe to be the Government's aims.
      Amendment No. 4 is not particularly necessary. It seeks to achieve the existing law of the land in a round-about fashion. It seems to be saying only that when there is a roll-over of a new option into another option, with cash paid out as well, the charge is on the cash element under clause 2(3)—on the assumption that one ignores any enhancement element in the new option. As discussed under amendment No. 2, that would be the position in any

      1113
      case, as I have just commented. We have no particular quibbles as to technical drafting problems with the amendment, but we are not sure that it is needed.
      Amendment No. 5 is broadly speaking okay. It addresses a mistake in the Bill which we pointed out in Committee. Amendment No. 6 also corrects a mistake that we pointed out in Committee. Amendment No. 7 is somewhat unclearly drafted, although if it were more precise, it could achieve an end with which everyone is in agreement—along the lines of our alternative amendment proposed in Committee.
      Is the Minister sure that the wording of amendment No. 8 is right? We think that the brackets should be deleted from subsection (10)—the current wording does not seem to make grammatical sense. However, I am open to correction. How is the amount of special contribution for one of the options to be assessed, if not according to the principles set out in clause 3? Are we to pretend that the option is an original right?
      I apologise for using such technical language, but it is important that law passed by this place is accurate and that it is so drafted as to achieve its objectives. I thought that the Government had accepted the underlying points in the amendments that we tabled to clause 3 in Committee. As I had sight of the Government's amendments only yesterday and had only yesterday afternoon and evening to take legal advice on them, I am disappointed that, for the third time, a significant part of the measure is wrong.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Burnett: I was extremely interested in the matters raised by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). He stressed the importance of consultation and of ensuring that the provisions are correct. They are designed to address loopholes in the Bill; we held lengthy discussions on those matters in Committee. In particular, they cover roll-overs and multiple roll-overs—an extremely complex issue. The fact that the amendments were available only yesterday means that neither individuals in the professions nor taxpayers have had an adequate opportunity to give their views on the drafting.
      I do not expect the Minister to offer us this afternoon a redrafting or suggested redrafting of amendments that the Government tabled only yesterday. I hope, however, that before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, he will authorise his officials to submit it to the professions, to taxpayers and interested individuals so that they can consider it and offer their comments. I am sure that the Minister will then be minded to listen carefully to their views.
      In Committee, I asked the Minister what the Government's aim was in respect of these provisions. I asked him to confirm that, if there was a bona fide exchange of shares—for example, on a takeover—at approximate parity, and provided it that was not part of a measure designed for the avoidance of taxation, a charge should not arise for the taxpayer. There should be no charge to a taxpayer on a takeover or subsequent takeover; to use capital gains tax jargon as roll-over jargon, it should be treated as "no gain, no loss". There should be no charge for the special national insurance contribution.
      When the Minister responded to my point, he agreed as to the Government's aim. He said that if the roll-over is at parity, there should be no additional charge. In the light
      1114
      of our previous debates and our discussions on private companies, will the Minister confirm that there should be no charge? That is important. If there is parity or approximate parity—in respect of private companies, the valuation of shares is an art, not a science—there should be tolerance in valuation either way. It is in the commercial best interests of this country that takeovers happen and that, when they do, taxpayers can be reasonably sure of their liability, provided that they have a bona fide stab at valuation.
      Since the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendments that we tabled previously, I can only ask him to elucidate—to tell the House exactly what the charge will be. When will there be an exemption on a roll-over or a multiple roll-over? Will the Minister confirm that he will instruct his officials to circulate these draft provisions to the professions and to interested parties? And when they make their comments and submissions, will he listen to them and then submit a properly drafted Bill to the House of Lords?
      Mr. Jack: I do not profess to understand the technicalities of this provision beyond its general purpose, but I rise to express my discontent at Government amendment No. 3 and the tortuous drafting therein. Except for the sake of giving the Financial Secretary adequate time to respond to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), I shall not detain the House for long.
      First, I should like to know what Government amendment No. 3 means and how it will be applied. It starts:
      "Subject to subsection (5), so much of section 136(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (charge to tax in roll-over cases) as provides for"—
      and on it goes in the most labyrinthine and impenetrable language. I want to know what it means.
      Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Oh no!
      Mr. Jack: It is a great pity that the Whip on duty will not grace the House with his own clairvoyance on the matter. The fact that we are subjected to such language is a condemnation of parliamentary drafting, especially as a tax law rewrite exercise is taking place.
      Secondly, I should like the Financial Secretary to tell us why such a technical matter was not subject to further consultation. The Government have had long enough to develop the Bill. Part of the clarity of the tax system has been achieved by virtue of subjecting to outside opinion the proposals in the rewrite exercise. As both Front-Bench spokesmen have said, this group of amendments clearly has not been subject to the white heat of public scrutiny.
      I ask the Financial Secretary for a proper, fully detailed explanation of Government amendment No. 3. Why has it been so poorly drafted? How does he propose to ensure that practitioners have an opportunity to comment on the legislation before it is finally cast in concrete?
      Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for the care with which he has studied these amendments and taken advice on their contents. He and the hon. Member for Torridge

      1115
      and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) have asked me what precisely is the Government's intention in clause 3, so I shall explain it again.
      Under clause 3, settled options will not incur any further class 1 liability where the option is subsequently rolled over, provided that roll-over is conducted at parity. That aspiration was expressed by both hon. Gentlemen, and that is our intention. Where the roll-over is not at parity, class 1 national insurance contributions will apply, but only on the proportion of the gain on the new option that relates to the amount in excess of parity. So the amount of the gain on the new option that relates to the original remains capped.
      Mr. Burnett rose—
      Mr. Timms: Let me finish the point. I confident that, when these amendments are agreed to, that is what the clause will achieve. The relief from class 1 contributions will be provided by a new basis of the class 1 charge. Therefore, only the proportion of the new option in excess of parity will be subject to charge. That is the intention.
      Of course, I shall consider with great care what hon. Members have said about the details of the wording. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asks what Government amendment No. 3 will achieve. The best that I can do is to refer him to the published notes, which set out precisely what Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4 will achieve. I shall carefully consider the points that hon. Members have made. I am happy to discuss technical matters, as we have done throughout the process, with the share scheme lawyers group. The Inland Revenue has discussed the roll-over provisions with that group. I believe that these amendments will achieve the Government's intention, which is supported on both sides of the House, and on that basis, I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      SPECIAL PROVISION FOR ROLL-OVERS
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 4, line 44, at end insert—
      '(3A) The liability by virtue of section 2(3) to pay Class 1 contributions in respect of a gain realised on the assignment or release of the original right shall be determined—

      (a) as if (notwithstanding anything in section 136(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) the replacement right were or, as the case may be, were part of the valuable consideration given for the assignment or release; and

      (b) as if the value of so much of that consideration as is represented by the replacement right were equal to whichever is the smaller of the following amounts—

      (i) the amount which (in accordance with the provisions of section 135(3)(a) of that Act) would have been taken to be the gain realised by an exercise in full of the original right immediately before the time of its assignment or release; and

      (ii) the amount which (in accordance with those provisions) would have been taken to be the amount of the gain realised by an exercise in full of the replacement right at that time (assuming it to be exercisable at that time) which falls immediately after it is given in consideration of the assignment or release.'.

      No. 3, in page 5, line 7, leave out from "determined" to first "to" in line 29 and insert—
      'in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
      (4A) Subject to subsection (5), so much of section 136(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (charge to tax in roll-over cases) as provides for sections 135 and 136 of that Act to apply as mentioned in section 136(1) of that Act in relation to the replacement right, or in relation to any subsequent replacement right, shall be deemed to have effect (or, as the case may be, to have had effect) for the purposes of the determination mentioned in subsection (4) of this section—

      (a) as if it provided for those sections to apply (and to apply as so mentioned) in relation to that right'.

      No. 4, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—
      (5) Where—

      (a) the whole or any part of any consideration given for the assignment or release of the replacement right or of any subsequent replacement right does not (or did not) comprise a subsequent replacement right, and

      (b) as a consequence, a gain would (but for this Act) be taken for the purposes of section 135 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to be realised (or to have been realised) on that assignment or release,

      that gain shall be taken for the purposes of the determination mentioned in subsection (4) to be (or, as the case may be, to have been) equal to the amount in respect of which liability to pay Class 1 contributions would have been preserved, on the assumptions mentioned in subsection (5A), by virtue of section 2(3) (read with subsection (3A) of this section) or, if no such liability would have been so preserved, to nil.
      (5A) Those assumptions are—

      (a) that (subject to paragraph (c)) the right assigned or released is a right the liability to pay Class 1 contributions in respect of which is a liability to which section 2(1)(a) or (b) applied;

      (b) that references in subsection (3A) of this section to the original right and to the replacement right are references, respectively, to the right that is assigned or released and to the right comprised in the consideration for the assignment or release; and

      (c) that so much of the right assigned or released as is a right to acquire additional shares is to be disregarded for the purposes of both section 2(3) and subsection (3A) of this section.

      (5B) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall limit or remove, or be deemed to have limited or removed, any liability to pay Class 1 contributions in respect of a gain arising on the exercise, assignment or release of the replacement right, or of any subsequent replacement right, in any case in which the right in question or that gain derives (directly or indirectly) from a transaction the purpose, or one of the main purposes, of which was to make use of the provisions of this Act to avoid the payment of such contributions in respect of a benefit conferred after 19th May 2000.'.
      No. 5, in page 5, line 36, leave out from "right" to "the" in line 37 and insert—
      'with a value that matches the value of'.
      No. 6, in page 5, line 41, leave out from "right" to end of line 49 and insert—
      'shall be taken to have a value that matches the value of the shares obtainable in exercise of the old right to the extent, and to the extent only, that the following amounts are the same—

      (a) the amount which (in accordance with the provisions of section 135(3)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988) would be taken to be the amount of the gain realised by an exercise of the new right at the relevant time (assuming it to be exercisable at that time) for obtaining the shares; and

      1117

      (b) the amount which would have been taken (in accordance with those provisions) to be the gain realised by a full exercise of the old right immediately before the time of its assignment or release;

      and in this subsection "the relevant time", in relation to the new right, means the time which falls immediately after it is given in consideration of the assignment or release of the old right.'.
      No. 7, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
      '( ) All such apportionments as may be necessary shall be made in determining for the purposes of this section, in a case in which the number of additional shares cannot be a whole number, to what extent a liability to pay Class 1 contributions arises in relation to the exercise, assignment or release of a right to acquire any such shares.'.
      No. 8, in page 6, line 8, leave out—
      'require the assumptions set out in subsections (5) and (6) to be used'
      and insert "apply"—[Mr. Timms.]

    Clause 5

      INTERPRETATION
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 40, leave out "sixty" and insert "ninety-two".
      In Committee, I was happy to accept the amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), which extended the period in which notification and payment must be made from 60 to 92 days after Royal Assent. Of course, that change must be made throughout the Bill, but we subsequently found an omission. The amendment will remedy that omission and ensures that 92 days will be referred to throughout.
      Mr. Flight: We welcome this amendment. In fact, in Committee, it was our error to have missed one of the references to 60 days. We are glad that the Government have picked up that omission, so that the Bill will refer to 92 days throughout.
      Mr. Burnett: We also welcome this amendment. We supported the amendments in Committee. The date for notification and payment will now be 92 days, not 60 days, as in the proposals as originally drafted. This worthwhile amendment is welcomed throughout the business community.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      3.27 pm
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill, as hon. Members know, responds to the concerns of a number of companies about the effects of paying national insurance on employee share option gains. Following that change, some companies said that the uncapped secondary national insurance charge had led to accounting difficulties for them.
      Following a period of consultation, measures were introduced last year, enabling companies to remove the accounting problems and uncertainty that the NIC charge presented. The earlier measure allowed companies to ask the employee to bear the secondary national insurance charge on the share option gain. That was announced on
      1118
      19 May 2000. That legislation has enabled companies to remove the accounting difficulties and has provided them with certainty.
      Although last year's legislation was drafted to cover all the options that had already been granted, it has, not surprisingly, been difficult for employers to negotiate with employees terms that change options already granted to them, so the uncertainty remained for some of the companies that granted options before 19 May 2000.
      The Bill responds by giving companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000 early, in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that choose to take advantage of this measure will be able to cap their national insurance liability by calculating the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7 November 2000.
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Financial Secretary clarify a basic point about the legislation? We are trying to redress an anomaly, which was created as a consequence of earlier legislation designed to prevent tax avoidance of the NIC charge by the use of share options. How much revenue do the Government reckon was at stake in the beginning, and how much revenue is at stake now? We have just heard the most extraordinary labyrinthine story of complex legislation being added to the statute book, and that has resulted in huge compliance costs for industry and a bonanza for lawyers. How much money will the Government get in return for that?
      Mr. Timms: The Bill does not correct an anomaly; it completes the arrangements to ensure that companies will not face the uncertainties about which some of them have been concerned. On the hon. Gentleman's question about the cost, because payments in the first year will have to be made within 92 days of Royal Assent there will be a gain to the Exchequer. Money will be paid earlier than it would be if it were paid only when the options were exercised. Over a five-year period, there will be a loss to the Exchequer and we estimate that to be about £160 million.
      Mr. Tyrie: I am sure that the Minister has given the correct answer about the cost of the Bill, but my question was about the problem that was generated by the decision taken in 1996. I want to know how much revenue was at stake when that decision was taken. Clearly, the Government must have gone back to consider the original legislation to see whether it was worth while closing all these loopholes.
      Mr. Timms: I do not have a figure for how much was at stake when the previous Government made the changes in 1996. I have no doubt that they published figures at the time, and I shall certainly try to dig them out. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
      As I have explained, companies that choose to take advantage of the measure will be able to cap their national insurance liability by calculating the amount of national insurance due by reference to the gain accrued up to 7 November 2000. They will be required to notify the Inland Revenue and pay the appropriate amount within 92 days of Royal Assent.

      1119
      Our consideration of the Bill has been brief, but it has been fruitful. Several worthwhile improvements to it have been made and I am grateful to hon. Members for that. I take pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
      3.32 pm
      Mr. Flight: As the House is aware, the Bill is the Government's second attempt to correct the problems of their own making when, with inadequate consultation, they introduced in April 1999 a charge to national insurance on unapproved option gains. As has been pointed out, this attempt has resulted in excessive technical detail and it still has not got the corrections entirely right in the objectives for takeovers, under this relieving Bill.
      We have welcomed, in principle, the relieving measures in the Bill and we welcome the fact that the Government accepted most of the points that we raised in Committee. They will make the operation of the relieving measures more practical by allowing a sensible period of 92 days in which to elect to pay this one-off national insurance charge.
      However, as we said at some length on Second Reading and in Committee, we continue to oppose the principle of making companies gamble on their potential tax liabilities. The only comfort for most listed companies that issued options between April 1999 and May 2000 is that the options would likely have been significantly under water on 7 November 2000, given what happened to stock markets over that period. Therefore, the great majority of companies will not have any difficult decisions to make, because they will not have a special NIC liability.
      I stress that we do not think it is correct for Governments to play with tax policy and offer quid pro quos, or gambles, on shareholders' funds. Let the Government never forget that the overwhelming majority of shareholders are pension funds.
      The Government have not entirely understood the principles relating to market abuse on which they themselves insisted in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. At that time, we urged them to accept the principle of intent, but they resisted that. As a result, under the Bill, giving misleading price information—whether intended or not—will be an offence.
      As we have previously pointed out, if companies do not exercise the option to make the special NIC payment, the markets will perceive them as sending a negative signal about their share price prospects. However, as the Minister agreed, the reasons for that might be quite different: companies might not exercise the right because of a shortage of cash or because of intended staff changes. The only comfort is that the latest draft of the Financial Services Authority's code of conduct on market abuse makes it clear that it has included the concept of intent in virtually every provision, as we recommended at the outset.
      As we pointed out last summer in the debates on the Finance Act 2000, our main criticism is directed towards the whole approach of treating options in the same way as remuneration and the argument that gains on unapproved options should be subject to national insurance charges. Such thinking is misplaced. It is absolutely clear that if someone's remunerations arrangements involve a lower salary than he might receive at a mature company but
      1120
      include a package of options, whether those options have any value is entirely a matter of risk. The net effect of everything that the Government have done is to tax those options at a higher rate than ordinary income, and that cannot be logical.
      In reality, the Government's proposals were an excuse for more stealth taxation. On 4 September last year, the Minister wrote to me advising that the Treasury viewed the cost of not having national insurance on unapproved options as £1 billion per annum. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Government will obtain anything like that revenue from national insurance on options. To the extent that the Government argue that the proposals are designed to close avoidance loopholes, I point out that I have never encountered arrangements whereby one can have a share option scheme with a certain return. If the Government and Revenue have encountered such an arrangement, that problem could have been dealt with specifically. The much wider measure of treating option gains as the same as earned income is the wrong path down which to go.
      The issue is important because unapproved options have become central to entrepreneurial motivation in this country. The tax regime for approved options is attractive but they are limited to £30,000 in value. Sadly, the Government's new executive management incentive scheme is extremely restrictive. Therefore, unapproved options are used overwhelmingly to offer incentives to management, particularly in new businesses in the new technology and new economy sectors.
      In Committee, the Minister admitted that only 100 companies of the 20,000 or so suitable have taken up the new executive management scheme incentive scheme. Although it looks very generous, it is difficult to qualify for and any company that started to achieve success would quickly disqualify itself. I am tempted to observe that the Government knew that because the amount of tax cost provided in the Red Book was modest.
      Let us come to the heart of the matter. I am assuming that the Government are not disingenuous in their desire to see a much more vital economy and a much higher level of venture capital investment. We should not be complacent. The United Kingdom is doing poorly against America. Per pound or dollar of national income, America is achieving about four times the level of venture capital investment of the United Kingdom. We may be doing well against Europe, but we are certainly doing poorly against America. That has been central to the growth rates of the two economies. America has grown at about 4.6 per cent. per annum for the past three years and the United Kingdom at only about 2.3 per cent. Our under-performance is material. The huge US economy has done so well largely because of the tremendously positive level of investment and activity in new ventures in high-tech, new economy and so forth.
      This is central to the Bill. When people in the venture capital industry in the United Kingdom are asked what are the key issues, interestingly they say that right now it is not about there not being enough money, but about a shortage of talented management wanting to come forward. There is a shortage of people willing to leave the more comfortable employment terms and security with large, established businesses and risk joining a new business. Often there is also a shortage of new business projects that those people might otherwise bring to the table.

      1121
      When the venture capital industry is asked what is central to this issue, it says that the tax regime on share options in the United Kingdom is extremely unattractive compared with that in the United States. In the United States for the equivalent of UK approved schemes, known as ISOs, people can have $100,000 of options per annum; the employee is not taxed on exercise but only on the sale of shares following the exercise of those options; the tax rate, provided that he has held the shares for a year, is 20 per cent.; and there is no equivalent to national insurance charge because social security charges are capped for both employer and employee at incomes of $74,000.
      In the United States, the new business sector which is not hugely profitable—it is building businesses where cash flow is tight—uses predominantly ISO options to pull in and motivate talented management and, inevitably, pays them lower salaries than they would get in mature businesses. That is what options are all about.
      While US unapproved options have a tax of 39.6 per cent. on exercise, the issuing companies get a tax credit equal to the tax which the employee pays, so the net tax situation between employer and employee is tax paid at about 10 per cent. and, again, there is no equivalent to our national insurance charge.
      If the Government genuinely want to get a higher level of venture capital activity in the United Kingdom, it is crucial that they accept and understand the message from the industry that we are going wrong on option incentives. The Computing Services and Software Association said to the Chancellor in the lead-up to the discussions behind the Bill:
      "We need a similar regime to the USA as that is where we have to compete for staff."
      The Minister will be aware that the top management of Cisco, now the largest high-tech company in the world, and of companies such as Micromuse—still British but with more of its activities in the United States than here—say that the high tax on options was leading them to move their operations elsewhere, predominantly to the USA, because they could not motivate staff here where options were taxed too highly.
      The staff needed in the new business areas are international. They are people who will move about the world readily. This is not necessarily about a brain drain from here to the United States; it is also about whether we attract the talent from all over the world to the UK that we need to get our high-tech sector going.
      The chairman of the UK small business investment taskforce, appointed by the Government, commented in a letter two weeks ago on how restrictive the executive management incentive option schemes were and on how punitive the national insurance charge arrangements on options are. The chief executive of QXL Internet Auction company commented that the NIC situation in this country would force talented staff out of the United Kingdom.
      The message from the high-tech industry is loud and clear. This relieving Bill is welcome in terms of the specifics, but it does not address the fundamental issue—namely, that the Government have hit the venture capital and new tech industries by applying a 47.3 per cent. Tax
      1122
      charge on unapproved options when individuals exercise them. That is right at the centre of why we are not doing nearly as well as the US in our new venture capital industry.
      Last May the Government realised and accepted the threat to the cash flows of new companies by imposing NICs on options. It is the companies that are the problem with a 12.2 per cent. national insurance charge. The Government thought that they could be clever and that by a wheeze they could keep the stealth tax that they had imposed by changing the rules so that the employer's NIC could be transferred to the employee. As the Government have confirmed, that gives a 47.32 per cent. tax charge to employees on unapproved share options.
      It is palpably nonsense that a risky form of remuneration—whether options are worth anything depends on the particular success or failure of an individual business, whether new high-tech areas prosper and the general economic climate and where the risk-to-reward ratio is skewed heavily to risk—should attract higher tax than a safe salary. That is theoretical nonsense. It is reducing the use of options. The reaction of talented people who are willing to work for new ventures is to want better salaries and a safer income, as well as some options. Instead of the trade-off of lower salaries and more options, they are demanding higher salaries, and that is just what new businesses cannot afford.
      Behind the Bill still lies the great misfortune that just when the Government have been claiming that they want to help new ventures, venture capital and entrepreneurship, they have hit at the centre and made the key element—namely, option incentivisation—punitive and unattractive tax-wise. If the Minister goes out and about in the venture capital industry and talks to people other than the Government's cronies, he will find that the Government are not seen as bona fide friends to entrepreneurship and venture capital, and are believed not to understand how crucial the taxation of options is to entrepreneurial endeavour.
      When the relieving measures that we are discussing were announced shortly before Christmas, the press reaction summed them up. It was that the proposals received one cheer from high-tech entrepreneurs, who said that they did not go far enough and did not address the fundamental issue. Others commented that the problem is of the Government's own making, with constant tinkering and a failure to sort out the fundamental issue of what the tax regime should be for share options, if we want to be able to attract many more talented people into new ventures.
      The Bill is a relieving measure and we are not opposing it. We hope that the Government will correct what we believe are outstanding technical errors as the Bill passes through another place. We appreciate that the Government have accepted our proposals to make arrangements simpler and to avoid potential for unfairness in this Bill. We say to the Government, "If you are genuine about wanting to encourage entrepreneurship, go back to first principles and consider the taxation of options in the United States. Do what those who are at the centre of, and who are trying to create, more new venture capital and more new business recommend, and look to have option taxation regimes that are broadly similar to those of the US and that are not punitive, as the mainstream unapproved option regime now is."
      3.52 pm
      Mr. Burnett: This is one of the few occasions where the Government have changed their mind on a Treasury Bill. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to, and understanding, the points that have been made. Both the changes to which he has agreed are important.
      The Bill is a relieving measure and it is helpful. It caps liabilities at 7 November 2000. As I said earlier, other amendments could have been made in fairness to taxpayers. For example, the Government should have given taxpayers a choice whether to pay on 7 November or on the date on which the option was exercised. That would have been simpler, just as certain, and fair. Now, an individual will, for example, have to pay national insurance contributions on the value of an option on 7 November last of £100,000. The option might decrease significantly in value, and when he or she exercises the option in years to come, the value might be only £10,000, so the individual will be considerably worse off.
      The amendments that have been agreed to are welcome. First, the period in which notice is given and contributions have to be made is extended from 60 days to 92. Secondly, there is the amendment that applies where the amount of special contribution is nil because on 7 November either the option was under water or the shares were not readily convertible assets. In those circumstances, notice would be deemed to have been given within the prescribed period. Those are helpful amendments.
      We discussed the significant amendments that the Government introduced yesterday, and the Minister has confirmed that he will circulate the draft clauses and probably the entire Bill. I welcome that. I believe he said that he would circulate them to the various professional bodies and perhaps to some taxpayers who call for representation so that they have the opportunity to make submissions and produce amendments to clarify and improve the Bill.
      Having had those assurances from the Minister, and realising that the Bill is a relieving measure, we welcome the Bill and the amendments to which the Minister has acquiesced. We shall not, therefore, oppose it.
      3.55 pm
      Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I confess that I did not understand all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made when he was dealing with the Government's amendments to clause 3. I doubt whether anyone else in the House did. I certainly do not think that the Minister did. The only person who fully grasped them was my hon. Friend. That reflects a serious problem that we have encountered today in trying to make legislation of this sort on the Floor of the House.
      It is certain that we shall be passing a flawed Bill to the other place, where we hope that it will be put right. It seems that the programme motion will prevent virtually any discussion, if the Government so choose, of any changes made in the other place, even if they are substantive. Effectively, that which is to become law will have received virtually no scrutiny in this place. That is not a good way to produce legislation.
      I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs that this relieving Bill is welcome, but that the Government have hit the industry
      1124
      elsewhere and have not understood the damage that they have been doing. We are dealing with a complex and technical matter that relates to an awkward interaction between tax and national insurance contributions. The origins of the problem lie in the decision to treat options as remuneration. That was done as an anti-avoidance measure. I shall throw up for consideration whether that was worth it and whether the Government have thought through whether it was.
      There are two ways of answering that question. First, was it worth it from the Inland Revenue's perspective and how much NIC liability has been created? The Minister gave me the figures for this relieving measure, but following my earlier intervention it was clear that he had no understanding of how much money was being brought in as a whole as a result of the underlying measure, which the Government are attempting to improve by means of the Bill. How much avoidance activity will be discouraged by putting the Bill on the statute book? The yield may be low, but firms may have written fewer options than they would otherwise have done.
      The second big issue in addressing whether it was right to treat options as remuneration is the effect that that has had on the whole economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to that in his excellent speech. Treating options as remuneration significantly affects economic behaviour. Share options may be extremely efficient as incentives to better business performance. That approach will have been discouraged by anti-avoidance measures.
      An assessment of the entire economy would also take into account the compliance burden, the administrative burden and the legal and accounting costs involved in introducing the measure. There has been far too little analysis of those whole-economy effects and a great reluctance to put numbers on them, in terms not only of the Bill and underlying legislation but of a range of measures that the Government have taken since 1997.
      Some of that work used to be done by the deregulation unit, but one of the Government's first acts was to abolish that, in July 1997.
      The Government are trying to mitigate the whole-economy damage that some of their measures have caused by creating the new approved scheme. The EMI scheme and the company share option plans that the Government introduced push in that direction. They have heavily targeted the information technology sector with some of their measures. I am not convinced that it is right to create a distortive incentive to target a particular sector. The argument runs that that incentive is needed because shares in the IT sector are more volatile. So what? Volatility should be treated as a business cost and the Government should not rejig the tax system to take account of it.
      I said that I do not like the way in which the Government have gone about the matter. By implication, I am criticising the way in which the previous Government tried to treat the awkward relationship between tax and national insurance contributions. Of course, that is the origin of the Bill. Let me briefly go through a few possible alternative approaches. The first would be to continue muddling through, which, clearly, the Government are trying to do now. One could continue to try to police the line between tax and national insurance; one could try to limit tax avoidance, but strike

      1125
      a balance between closing tax ramps and chasing small sums that might slip through. However, there is always the risk that one is chasing ever smaller sums with larger dollops of regulation and ever more pages of legislation.
      Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to, and agree with, the contribution principle?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me say that his remarks are becoming rather wide-ranging. Third Reading is limited to the contents of the Bill, and his remarks should be limited to those contents.
      Mr. Tyrie: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know that the Bill that we are now considering will not end up on the statute book because it is flawed as drafted; there will be further consultation and it will be fundamentally re-examined in the House of Lords. It is therefore helpful to flag up markers for the other place when it comes to examine the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What happens to the Bill when it leaves this place does not affect the fact that Third Reading speeches should relate purely to the content of the Bill.
      Mr. Tyrie: A crucial aspect of that content is the great emphasis on the need to collect revenue, however small the amount being chased. Looking at the Bill, one sees that there is almost a light-headedness about putting on the statute book huge quantities of highly complicated legislation. I defy anybody to read the amendments and honestly say that they can work out what they mean. As I said, nobody has made the effort to work out the whole-economy effect of such measures.
      Other approaches need to be adopted alongside the approach that the Government have decided to take. One is to treat share options like all shares and tax the capital gain, as was suggested by Mr. Mike Lynch, chief executive of the software group Autonomy. He said:
      "There's no doubt that the Government is trying to do the right thing."
      I agree. Mr. Lynch continues:
      "The problem is that they tinker, tinker, tinker and don't sort out the fundamental issue, which is that options should be treated as a capital gain, and not be hit with national insurance."
      That has some attractions, although the logic of it leads towards integration of capital gains tax and income tax; I am not sure whether Mr. Lynch had that in mind. Of course, the treatment of capital gains as a marginal slice of income was the intellectual background to the 1988 Budget, which caused so much controversy in the venture capital industry. That is not the right way to go. Capital gains tax is in a fundamental mess, and trying to go down that route would make it even worse.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman is cantering around the economy, I remind him yet again that he must debate the precise content of the Bill.
      Mr. Tyrie: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making sure that I do not canter around the economy.
      1126
      However, I assure you that there is an intimate inter-relationship between share options, capital gains and the anti-avoidance measures on national insurance that we are discussing. Once one is altered, the others will require attention, which is why this awkward measure is before us today.
      I shall not linger for more than two sentences on the point about the contributory principle made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I disagree with the view that national insurance contributions and income tax should be integrated, and believe that the contributory principle should stay. The recent report of the Select Committee on Social Security agreed with that, and that is probably where we shall remain. If so, we are thrown back to the first option that I listed—muddling through. If we do muddle through, I urge the Government, as I said a moment ago, not to chase ever smaller sums of revenue with ever more regulation. Is it really worth trying to collect national insurance on unapproved share options?
      That is the key underlying question, which I hope the other place will have in mind when they examine the Bill. When it does so, I hope that it will weigh the whole-economy cost against the diminishing return to the Inland Revenue.
      4.7 pm
      Mr. Eric Forth: Following your general nudging of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that I would say a few words about the Bill. That seems to be the order of the day and is what the House expects on Third Reading. I shall have a go and see if I can deal with the Bill in the limited time that is left.
      First, an irregularity that struck me—and which, I hope, will attract the attention of their Lordships in another place—is the Bill's long title. These are difficult, complicated matters to do with tax and high finance, and understanding them is obviously limited to a small number of people, of whom I am certainly not one. In those circumstances, the layman is allowed to speculate about why on earth the Bill deals retrospectively with a period beginning with 6 April 1999 and ending with 19 May 2000.
      That tells one several things, including the fact that the problem was certainly not noticed when it should have been and/or was not dealt with properly when it should have been. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we shall reach back into the recesses of time and try to deal with it now. That strikes me as something that we would normally deprecate and be uneasy about. Against that background, I am a little unhappy with the consensus with which the Bill seems to be easing its way forward.
      Following your helpful advice to look at the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my eye lit upon clause 2(5), in which, I thought, some sinister elements appeared. It contains the condition:
      "If it appears to the Inland Revenue that a person who has given a notice under section 1 in respect of any right and who would (but for subsection (4) of this section), be liable by virtue of that notice to pay a special contribution".
      A lot of use of "appears to" and "but for" is creeping in. At the very least, that indicates something that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was at pains to point out from the start:

      1127
      the measure has not been properly thought out and, despite the expertise and tender ministrations of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), we still have not got it anywhere near where it should be at this stage of the proceedings. After all, the Bill is in the last gasps of its proceedings through the House of Commons. I wonder whether the Government are up to their old tricks, hoping that it will be sorted out properly in another place. That is a constitutional and parliamentary proposition of extremely dubious value.
      This place should take responsibility for sorting out Bills that originate here. One could say that, when a Bill originates in another place, we expect it to come here in good order. The same must surely apply in the other direction. What seems to be happening recently, not least in respect of this Bill, is that we have come to rest more and more on the presumption that we can do sloppy, untidy, hasty, poor work here—making the law of the land, let us not forget, and affecting people very directly, as our measures must inevitably do, and this Bill no less than most—and pass it to the other end of the building, saying to their lordships, "You have more time. You can sort it out." That is not a sound constitutional principle.
      My doubts grew even stronger when I read in clause 2(5)(a) the words:
      "which he had reasonable grounds for believing was the correct amount of his liability".
      That is probably fair enough, but the clause goes on, almost unbelievably, in paragraph (c):
      "has a reasonable excuse for having failed to do either of those things within that period"—
      not a reason, but an excuse. Excuses have now entered our statute as a term of art.
      I am not a lawyer. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon is an eminent lawyer. It is probably too late for him to comment now, but I leave the thought with him and not least with the Minister: if we are writing excuses into our statute, matters have gone beyond all reason. It makes me wonder how on earth we could have arrived at this point in our deliberations, with all the accumulated brain power of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, the Minister, who has been praised lavishly today and whom I will praise modestly, and all the panoply of talent available to the Minister via the parliamentary draftsmen, when they are not engaged on hundreds of amendments to other Bills at the last minute.
      The best that the Government can come up with in the Bill is a reference to someone having a reasonable excuse for having failed to do something within a specified period. It is pretty desperate stuff, when one thinks about it. It is not the stuff of which proper statutes should be
      1128
      made. It will provide a field day for the lawyers. Imagine them getting their minds around that, and their fees around it, as well. I will not tempt my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who, if he were listening to me, which he wisely is not—
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I was listening closely to my right hon. Friend. He was speaking about fees.
      Mr. Forth: I shall have a quiet word later with my right hon. and learned Friend. Leading up to the talk about fees, I was speaking about excuse as a concept in the law. He and I can discuss that later; even though it is in the Bill, I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want me to elaborate further.
      At that point, I was put off reading the Bill any further. I thought, "If things are as bad as that so early in the Bill, I do not see why I should upset myself or anyone else by reading on." I concluded without too much effort that it is yet another example of a Bill poorly conceived, poorly drafted and—I say this with considerable regret—poorly scrutinised, mainly because the Government have not given us proper time or opportunity to give it the attention that it deserves.
      As has been pointed out, the period allowed between identification of the flaws in the Bill in Committee and its Report stage today would usually be sufficient to permit proper reflection, advice to be taken from other sources and the expertise of those whom I mentioned previously to be brought to bear. None of that has been allowed. If we are to learn a lesson from the Bill, it is that the way in which the Government are requiring the House to deal with legislation is inadequate. It palpably does not work, and the Bill is a perfect example of that.
      Although I sense that we shall probably give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading—would that that were not the case, as I would love to vote against it—I hope that, at the very least, we can invite Members of another place to give it much more scrutiny than they might otherwise do.
      4.14 pm
      Mr. Timms: The climate for enterprise and entrepreneurship in the United Kingdom is better than it has ever been, and the Bill makes it better still. We have made a number of changes to the Bill. It has been a good example of effective scrutiny. I take great pleasure in commending it to the House.
      It being a quarter past Four o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  4.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16th January:

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

    Consideration and Third Reading
    1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
    2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Six o'clock.
    3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock.
    4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

    Consideration of 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 programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

    (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

    (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

    and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
    The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed by 7 pm. The programme is supplemental to the one approved for the Committee stage, which finished in good time, before the programmed date of 1 February. Indeed, we did not use all the time that was allowed in Committee under the programme motion agreed by the House.
    The Bill was debated thoroughly in Committee; the debate covered a range of relevant matters in detail. There was a high degree of consensus, and I am grateful for the co-operation of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and other hon. Members on the overall aims of the Bill. However, that did not prevent detailed and vigorous discussion and a thorough examination of the provisions.
    The Government have not tabled any further amendments. Only a small number of Opposition amendments were tabled in Committee, and the amendments before us this afternoon were discussed in Committee, so we should have plenty of time for debate in the time allocated for consideration of the amendments. Similarly, I hope that, given the consensus, Third Reading would not require more time than has been allocated. If the Opposition do not oppose the motion and we commence Report and Third Reading shortly, we will have two and three quarter hours for the debate. I commend the motion to the House.
    4.17 pm
    Mr. Robert Walter: It has become a ritual at the conclusion of each Second Reading debate and at the beginning of each Report stage that we spend 45 minutes debating not the merits of the Bill, however
    1130
    worthy and however urgent, but how long we will permit ourselves—or more correctly, how long the Government will permit us—to scrutinise the legislation.
    The proceedings on the Bill are a classic example of bad management of the time that the House spends scrutinising the Government's legislation. We spent the permitted 45 minutes debating the programme motion after Second Reading on 15 January, then a further 15 minutes or so voting on the motion—all to what effect? We voted to conclude the Committee stage by 1 February—not an unreasonable target for an eight-clause Bill, but as the Government are the masters of the timetable of the House, did the House need to resolve such a date at all?
    We also voted to set up a Programming Sub-Committee to timetable the Committee stage so that we might meet that target. As is the practice of such Sub-Committees, we met in private, with no record of our proceedings. We met early in the morning, two days after Second Reading, with the greatest display of amity that I have seen in the House for some time. We all referred to each other not by our constituencies, nor as Mr. this or Mrs. that, but by our Christian names, which is the practice in the National Assembly for Wales, where Members have a different way of conducting their business.
    The Minister—I dare not call him Dave now—moved a motion that we should meet at 10.30 on a Tuesday and 9.30 on a Thursday, and that we should conclude our proceedings by 1 February. The Government Whip—may I call him Don?—then informally suggested that we meet for five sittings: twice on the first Tuesday, once on the Thursday and twice the next Tuesday. The Opposition protested that that might not be sufficient. "Ah. No problem." We could meet after dinner each Tuesday. "But that may not be sufficient, either," we protested. We were then told, "Oh well, maybe we could meet twice on the first Thursday, and if that isn't sufficient, we could meet twice on the following Thursday." The original five sittings had now been expanded to a possible 10 sittings.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To help the Opposition.
    Mr. Walter: Indeed, to help the Opposition. That is the point that I am coming to. We could meet as often as we liked, so long as we finished by a specified end date. It was concluded that we could come back to the House if there was not sufficient time and ask for more time. There was some discussion between the Chairman and the Clerk on that point, but the Committee concluded that we could ask for an extension.
    Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that a motion asking for more time was dealt with earlier today, in relation to another Bill. He has obviously been preparing for the excellent speeches that he will make on the Bill before us, but will he confirm that we cannot consider or debate motions for further time? Such motions are simply slapped before the House, with or without consensus, and hon. Members who have not had the privilege of participating in the process are asked to take them or leave them. Does my hon. Friend approve of that procedure?
    Mr. Walter: I do not. As my right hon. Friend points out, we were not permitted to debate a Hunting Bill

    1131
    programme motion that was dealt with earlier. Apparently, according to the Sessional Orders that deal with programme motions, no debate is possible on such extensions of time.
    I left the Programming Sub-Committee wondering what purpose our meeting and the programme motion had served. It seemed that the usual channels were alive and well. The Whips could formulate whatever mutual agreement they felt to be necessary, and the rigid programme motion was completely superfluous. We must now consider whether the Government's proposed allocation of time is adequate for Report and Third Reading. 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 proposed time will be adequate.
    One of the principal reasons why we can have no idea at this stage whether it will be adequate is that we do not know how many hon. Members will seek to speak on the new clauses or to what extent. Without knowing how many speeches will be made, how complicated they will be or how strongly held the opinions expressed by hon. Members on either side of the House will be, it is absurd to speculate on whether we will have sufficient time to consider the issues.
    Even hon. Members who consider, as I do, that the Bill is sound in principle believe that the House should be able to consider its detail even at this late stage, before it goes to another place.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend said that this was a late stage. Although he is correct in one sense, it is also the first stage at which the House as a whole can consider the detail. That is what consideration on Report is about.
    Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. This is the opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House who did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee to discuss the amendments and new clauses that they have tabled. That will be pretty difficult in the time available. Although Opposition Members have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments, only two of them—I am sure that the timetable was borne in mind—have been selected for debate. It is a great pity that the Government display so much haste and indifference to the rights both of the Opposition and of their Back Benchers, who were very active in Committee.
    Mr. Hanson: I am greatly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's contribution, as I can tell from his eyes that he does not believe a word of it. Will he tell the House exactly when the Committee's sittings finished? As I recall, we did not use the time allocated for either the Tuesday or the Thursday sittings. And which hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee have tabled amendments for consideration today?
    Mr. Walter: It is clear that other hon. Members have not tabled such amendments. However, I have discussed with my hon. Friends a number of amendments and new clauses, and given the limited time granted by the timetabling of this business, we plan to ask our noble Friends in the other place to table similar amendments.
    Mr. Hogg: It may be right for amendments to be tabled in the other place, but does my hon. Friend agree that we,
    1132
    as elected Members of the House of Commons, should be the first to consider any substantive amendments? Does he further agree that if amendments have to be considered in another place because of a timetable motion, that is in itself a criticism of the process on which we are embarking?
    Mr. Walter: Yes. We will have barely an hour or so to consider on Report what emerged from the Committee. That time is insufficient for us to give adequate scrutiny to the Bill.
    I know that the Government are treating the measure with a degree of urgency, and that they want to get it through the House of Commons, to the other place and then back, so we can consider their lordships' amendments. I have no doubt that some members of the Government have a date in mind, maybe a month or so away, when they would like to tell the electorate that they have put the measure on to the statute book. Indeed, the Bill may be the only measure that they can claim to have introduced in the current Session.
    The timetable that the Government are insisting on has not been discussed before today. Opposition Members will be content to vote against the motion because we do not believe that the business of the House should be conducted in such a manner. We do not know how much consideration will be required by hon. Members who have an interest in the Bill, yet the Government are insisting on the motion. We will oppose it for that reason, and ask them to reconsider it.
    It is a flagrant abuse of the House to use programme motions on every Bill, but the Government have done so since the current Session began. However perverse they might feel it is for Opposition Members to complain at great length about lack of time, and while I do not want to detain the House, I must make it clear that we do not believe that such timetabling is the right way for business to be conducted. As has been pointed out on a number of previous occasions, the motion is a sign of the Government's discourtesy.
    Paragraph 4 of the motion states:
    "Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading."
    Last week, when the House considered a similar motion in relation to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he was not familiar with that aspect of Sessional Orders. He made inquiries and discussed the matter with the Clerks, and discovered that the
    "Sessional Orders do not merely provide for, but are supposed to insist on, the creation of a Programming Committee, which comprises several individuals almost as of right and meets explicitly and exclusively to determine the allocation of time when considering a Bill on Report and on Third Reading."—[Official Report, 30 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 200.]
    That Government are now inviting the House to disapply that Sessional Order and to substitute for a Committee and proper cross-party discussion a brief motion that they doubtless intend to ram through on their payroll vote.
    If the Minister is sincere about the need to be open-minded about the workings of the new procedure, it is extraordinary that neither he, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, nor the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), a Government Whip—who, as he should

    1133
    be, is currently silent—has made any attempt to communicate with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who was the Opposition Whip on the Standing Committee, with me, or with any other Conservative who served on the Committee about the allocation of time for Report. They have ignored Sessional Orders, and devised a cheeky form of words enabling them to insist on devoting only an hour or so to the remainder of the Bill.
    Mr. Hanson: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman inadvertently to mislead the House. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) that he discussed the matter with both the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
    Mr. Walter: I cannot comment on what happens through the usual channels, but I understand from my discussions with those gentlemen that there was no agreement on the amount of time to be allocated. I understand that a discussion may well have taken place, to which I was not party but which—as is often the case when discussions take place with Ministers and Whips—was rather one-sided. I understand that it was a case of, "This is our business. We propose that this will happen. Of course, you will have every opportunity to discuss it during the debate on the programme motion."
    That, clearly, is what we are doing now. We are debating the programme motion, and the probity of it. As I have said, however, I think it extraordinary that the Government should use their solid majority to overrule the rights of the House. It is wholly unacceptable for the Government, at the beginning of a Session, to introduce Sessional Orders permitting a programming Committee to decide on the length and content of debate on Report, and then to table a motion asking us to disapply those orders a bare few months later, in favour of a motion severely limiting our discussions on Report and Third Reading.
    No amount of protest from Labour Members about there being cross-party agreement on the need for the Bill will change the fact that the Government have treated the House with disdain, indifference and contempt. The allocation of time is unsatisfactory. This is not a proper way for the House to do business, and it is not a way for the Opposition, or Labour Back Benchers, to scrutinise the Government's legislation.
    I am sorry that Ministers do not take their legislative responsibilities as seriously as they might, but my hon. Friends and I do, and I know that Labour Back Benchers who served on the Standing Committee, in particular, took theirs exceedingly seriously. The many Members who also take their responsibilities seriously, and who share my view that inadequate time has been allocated, will doubtless wish to register their concerns shortly.
    4.33 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I oppose the motion. I regret to say that I have had to oppose such motions many times since we returned from the Christmas recess at the beginning of January. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I oppose programme motions
    1134
    because I think they are wrong in principle. We will not refrain from protesting about them and voting against them, even if in a particular instance there is enough time for debate, and even if the time taken by discussion of a programme motion is subtracted from time for the substantive debate.
    A number of us find this deeply offensive. I shall articulate again the reasons why: they are very similar to the reasons that I have given on many occasions in the last few months. The first applies not only to this Bill but to any Bill that is the subject of a programme motion. The basis on which accountable government works, and the reason for people's willingness, in a political commonwealth, to accept legislation that has passed through the House, is the belief of those people that the legislation has been properly scrutinised by their elected representatives. The plain truth is, however—this cannot be said too often—that a timetable motion prevents a Bill from being properly scrutinised by their elected representatives. In time the electorate will come to recognise that, and when they do they will appreciate that the existing legislative process is a farce—and a disgraceful and shameful farce at that.
    My first and, I believe, wholly compelling objection to programme motions is that important legislation is not properly scrutinised. My second objection is also one of principle. It was hinted at—in fact, expressly stated—by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) when he said that amendments might be necessary, but that they would be tabled in another place.
    There are at least three comments to be made about that. First, I think that my hon. Friend felt obliged to say what he did because he did not think we would have enough time today to discuss properly the amendments that he had in mind. That is shameful. I do not mean that my hon. Friend's action was shameful; I mean that it is shameful that he should have been put in such a position. Surely substantive amendments tabled by those on the Opposition Front Bench should be debated here, not in the other place.
    That was my main point. My second is this: amendments will be debated in the other place, and possibly passed; they will then come back to this elected House, where they will be debated again—if at all—on a very tight timetable motion. As a consequence, proper measures of change will not be properly debated in an elected Chamber. That cannot be right.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: How often did the right hon. and learned Gentleman make this speech when his party tabled guillotine motions during its time in office?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time. He will remember what happened under the last Government, of whom I was a member for 13 years. We did not guillotine Committee stages until 100 hours or so of debate had taken place. It was not our practice to guillotine Committee stages; nor was it our practice, as a matter of routine, to put down timetable motions on Report. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was plainly misconceived.
    Those of us who are interested in parliamentary government—representative, accountable government—are deeply concerned about the fact that the Chamber is increasingly deserted. There is a reason for that, although

    1135
    it is not the only reason. The hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) points to the Conservative Back Benches. That is fair enough; I now point to his.
    If a debate is confined to a few minutes, an hour and a half or whatever, Members who might otherwise wish to participate will know full well that they will not have a chance to do so, or that they will be sat on by Whips from one side or the other. That is a way of reducing the amount of debate in this place. If debate is restricted by artificial limits, there will not be Members in the Chamber. I consider that process extremely dangerous.
    I think it was the Minister who, quite fairly, pointed out that only two new clauses had been selected. It is possible—I made the point earlier—that in this instance there is time enough to consider them. I do not pretend that I have followed the debate on this particular Bill very closely.
    Mr. Forth: I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to be so generous. He will note that six, seven or eight Members are present, and they may wish to speak. Two new clauses have been selected; two times six or seven is 12 or 14; we have been given only an hour. Even my right hon. and learned Friend may rapidly conclude, having divided an hour by 14, that only a few minutes will be left for each Member to consider the new clauses. In all conscience, does he consider that adequate?
    Mr. Hogg: It may or may not be adequate. I am not trying to pretend that I have been following the debate on the Bill very closely. I am prepared to accept, as a basis for argument, that on this occasion there might be adequate time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst says that that is not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset has already made the point that he will have to cause amendments to be tabled in another place because there is not sufficient time to debate them here. Perhaps my assumption is, therefore, unduly generous.
    Mr. Walter: If I may correct my right hon. and learned Friend slightly, he will see from the amendment paper that three new clauses and two amendments were tabled. Although it is not for me or any other hon. Member to question the Speaker's judgment in selecting amendments for debate, I suspect that the allocation of time was such that Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, could choose only two amendments for discussion.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Mr. Speaker would select the amendments that he thought appropriate. He would not be influenced by the time available.
    Mr. Walter: I withdraw my suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Hogg: I was proceeding on the basis that the Speaker's selection was as it is, and I was not seeking to go beyond that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset makes a sound point in saying that amendments will have to be tabled in another place because of the restriction of time. That is a serious observation.
    1136
    Although it is true that there are only two new clauses to debate, hon. Members often use debates on particular amendments or new clauses as an occasion on which to articulate concerns arising out of the issues that are their subject. That is an important mechanism, whereby hon. Members can bring to the Floor of the House constituency-based problems and refer to them in the debates on new clauses. If one cuts down such debate, either by cutting the number of new clauses to be debated or by restricting the time available, the opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to articulate such concerns is inevitably lost. That is a sad state of affairs.
    I must also remind the House that the first occasion on which the House as a whole has the opportunity to discuss the detail of any Bill is on Report. We are frequently told by Ministers—no doubt the same thing happened when I was on the Government Front Bench—that the new clauses are but a reflection of what was promised in Committee. That may be true, but it does not satisfy or conclude the argument, because that is the first occasion on which the House as a whole—even if we are but 12 in number now—can consider those new clauses and amendments. Promises, assurances or statements made in Committee are neither here nor there, so far as hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee are concerned. A process is being put in place that tramples on democracy.
    I know that I have said all this before, and I shall say it again. At the root of the matter, democracy is being denied. The Government are denying democracy and deliberately trampling on it. That is a scandal, and I shall take every opportunity to bring that fact to the attention of the country. I hope that at the forthcoming election, the people of this country will understand that this is a tyrannical and despotic Government.
    4.44 pm
    Mr. Richard Livsey: The programme motion offers a brief timetable for seeing the Bill through. I have seen crocodile tears being shed, and a bit of a song and dance going on, rather like in a university debating society. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that an important principle is at stake, and there is no doubt about that.
    Two new clauses have been selected; there are eight clauses in the Bill. Two other possible amendments were tabled for debate, but not selected. The Government have decided to pass the Bill in its entirety without accepting any amendments—or, at least, not wanting any votes on them. The reason is that the Bill impinges on constitutional issues relating to the Government of Wales Act 1998, and perhaps we shall get to the bottom of some of them in the short debate that follows this one. I do not think that the Government will give way on any of them because there are important legal principles at stake, but I am sure that they will be examined in great detail in another place. We shall see what the Bill looks like when it returns to the House and we debate the Lords amendments.
    Most hon. Members agree on the need for an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales, and the Liberal Democrats do not want to delay that process. However, we also want the best possible independent Children's Commissioner, who will serve the children of

    1137
    Wales and in Wales. There is undoubtedly an element of determination behind the Bill, and it would be better for us to get on and to debate it on Third Reading. This is no time for pontificating; it is time for getting on.
    4.47 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on this matter. It is incumbent on the House, each time the Government introduce a programme motion, to give it proper consideration. However, these programme motions are guillotines: we are being subjected to serial guillotines.
    The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) rather mischievously implied that such proceedings had been perfectly routine under the previous Conservative Government, and that things were no different now. The hon. Gentleman's brain has obviously been addled by his years in Europe. He must remember that, during the glorious 18 years of the previous Government, when a Bill had had very lengthy consideration in Committee and been gratuitously obstructed by the Labour party in opposition, the then Government would introduce a motion to curtail debate and to move on. However, the Labour Government have routinely guillotine Bills from the off before having any idea of the likely length of time needed for proper consideration in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. That is a key difference, which I hope that even the hon. Member for Bridgend will concede on reflection.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman also served in Europe. I do not want to cast aspersions on his time there and the effect on his brain. However, does he recall the time when we served on a Committee that considered an education Bill in 1992–93? The proceedings were guillotined well before the 100 hours to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred as the magic number that the previous Government had used.
    Mr. Forth: I do not want to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have perfectly civilised relations outside the Chamber. Perhaps we could settle the matter over a cup of tea. I remember matters differently. When I first became a Member of Parliament in 1983, along with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not unusual for a large Bill—the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred had approximately 350 clauses and 50 schedules—to receive 150 or more hours of consideration in Committee before a guillotine was even suggested. Guillotines were introduced after less time much later. However, today we are discussing not hours, but minutes. We are being allowed only minutes in which to consider key stages of a Bill.
    It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) to agree with the Minister that the proceedings were consensual and chummy and that people were on first name terms and so on. That is beside the point. Every Bill deserves proper scrutiny. The more horrendously consensual the approach, the more scrutiny the measure deserves. Some of the worst legislation to emanate from this place had the ghastly appellation,
    1138
    "all-party support". In the legislative world, there is nothing worse than a Bill with all-party support. It inevitably ends up as sloppy, loose and damaging.
    It is not good enough to say that the Lords will sort matters out after we have been happily consensual, failed to do our job, or rushed matters through for political reasons or because we believed that a particular measure would be attractive to the electorate. It is even worse to rush through a measure because we believe it has a title that is too good to oppose. All those reasons apply to the Bill. It is unacceptable to rely on Tony's cronies, the unelected Members of another place, properly to scrutinise a Bill that we have fiddled through.
    Let me remind hon. Members of the Government's intention. They tell us that we have from 5.15 to 6.15 pm on Report; they allow the House of Commons only one hour. It has been pointed out that the amendment paper contains two new clauses. New clauses are serious provisions and deserve proper scrutiny. The fact that they have been selected shows that they are important and deserve the House's full attention.
    It is possible that 400 hon. Members could turn up in the next half hour, pack the Chamber and want to contribute, as they are entitled to do, to consideration of new clauses 2 and 3. My arithmetical ability just about extends to making the calculation: 400 Members of Parliament, each considering two new clauses in an hour. There is not enough time for each hon. Member to have a proper opportunity to do that.
    To be fair, the position that I outlined was theoretical. Let us consider the real position. Three Labour Back Benchers, one Plaid Cymru Member, one Liberal Democrat and, happily, four Opposition Back Benchers are present. Even if no other hon. Member attends the debate, seven or eight hon. Members may wish to participate. Seven hon. Members multiplied by two new clauses is 14. Sixty minutes divided by 14 equals a maximum of four or five minutes for each hon. Member to make a contribution on the new clauses.
    I do not know whether Labour Back Benchers believe that they can represent their constituents adequately on the matter that we are considering. I am sure that they will return to their constituencies and issue press releases that state that the matter is very important, the Government are wonderful, the atmosphere is consensual, the public are lucky to have the Bill and that they have been dying for such a measure. I bet they do not add, "By the way, I had four minutes to discuss it on your behalf in the House of Commons." However, that is the time that the Government are allowing hon. Members to discuss the matter on behalf of their constituents. It is inadequate; hon. Members should not be put in that position. I almost feel sorry for Labour Members when I think of them having to account to their electors for their Government allowing them only four minutes each to consider the new clauses.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not the point further aggravated by the fact that we are considering new clauses? In effect, our proceedings will constitute Second Reading of the new clauses. What has happened to the Committee stage? There will be no detailed discussion, and that makes the position even worse.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I will not discuss the substance of the new clauses

    1139
    because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not want me to do so. However, new clause 2 says that the commissioner
    "may at any time give advice to the Assembly".
    That could be worth discussing. It might even be somewhat controversial.
    New clause 3 talks about
    "requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies."
    That is important. Allowing somebody called a commissioner access to institutions smacks of what we thought we had put behind us. The commissioner will have access to institutions with the power of statute behind him. At the very least, that requires considerable thought. I wish we could table amendments to the new clauses, because I would be tempted to do so. In fact, that would have to be done by Tony's cronies at the other end of the building, not by the elected House of Commons. The more we consider this matter, the worse it becomes.
    The Minister thought that he was being clever when he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset and asked why, if there was so much interest, there were not more amendments. My hon. Friend pointed out that amendments were tabled and were not selected. We cannot discuss or challenge that, but that is not my point. My point reflects that made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The tragedy is that, because hon. Members know that the Government will allow only an hour for the Report stage of a Bill such as this, I suspect that many of them say, "What on earth is the point of tabling amendments when they will almost certainly not receive proper consideration?".
    Mr. Hogg: We know that to be the case because my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said as much in respect of his amendments.
    Mr. Forth: There is growing evidence that the arrogant automatic guillotining of legislation in advance of our knowing the nature of the Bill or its amendments or the amount of interest in it—we see it happening before our eyes—is throttling and diminishing hon. Members' interest and participation in the legislative process. There can be no worse condemnation of what the Government are gratuitously doing to this House and the legislative process than the fact that more and more Members of Parliament are being persuaded that they have no role in the legislative process. They are reduced to asking the Prime Minister cringing, sycophantic questions on the few occasions when he appears at the Dispatch Box, and to doing other trivial things. As a result of this ruthless guillotine process, all-party groups are proliferating because those poor creatures do not have anywhere else to go and have nothing to do in the Chamber.
    It is not my place to feel sorry for Government Back Benchers, but occasionally I do. They have to go back to their constituency and say, "Don't worry, I took part today in the all-party group on chocolate. You can be assured that I am representing your interests at Westminster because I have attended several important all-party groups on all sorts of important matters." If someone asks whether they participated in the legislative process or scrutinised the Government, they have to say, "No, I did not have time. I worked out that I would have less than a minute to make my contribution on your behalf if I
    1140
    ventured into the Chamber." That conversation will be taking place up and down the country as hon. Members try to give an account of themselves. I bet they are not out spinning or boasting about how much they have influenced the Government. I bet they are telling their constituents that the all-party group on chocolate was as far as they got.
    All in all, we find ourselves in a desperate situation. I share—I often do—the sentiment and undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham: that each of the programme motions stands on its own and requires the same amount of attention and debate. If I can, I will participate in a Division or, if necessary invite the House—
    Mr. Allan Rogers: I always enjoy the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to fill up time. I have enjoyed those attempts in Europe, and I enjoy them here. However, I do wish that he would not present the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) as a great martyr—
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
    The House having divided: Ayes 254, Noes 134.

    Division No. 112]

    [5 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cawsey, Ian

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clapham, Michael

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Ashton, Joe

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Austin, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Banks, Tony

    Clelland, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Barron, Kevin

    Coleman, lain

    Battle, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Beard, Nigel

    Cooper, Yvette

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Corston, Jean

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cousins, Jim

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cox, Tom

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cranston, Ross

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Berry, Roger

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Betts, Clive

    Cummings, John

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    (B'ham Hodge H)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dawson, Hilton

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Denham, John

    Browne, Desmond

    Dismore, Andrew

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Dowd, Jim

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Caplin, Ivor

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    1141

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Edwards, Huw

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Efford, Clive

    McWalter, Tony

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    McWilliam, John

    Ennis, Jeff

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Etherington, Bill

    Mallaber, Judy

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Fisher, Mark

    Martlew, Eric

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Maxton, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Meale, Alan

    Follett, Barbara

    Merron, Gillian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Miller, Andrew

    Galloway, George

    Mitchell, Austin

    Gardiner, Barry

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Gerrard, Neil

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Morley, Elliot

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Godsiff, Roger

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Goggins, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    (Aberavon)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Mountford, Kali

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mudie, George

    Hain, Peter

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Norris, Dan

    Hanson, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Healey, John

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Olner, Bill

    Hendrick, Mark

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Heppell, John

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hill, Keith

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Plaskitt, James

    Hoey, Kate

    Pollard, Kerry

    Hope, Phil

    Pond, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pope, Greg

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Pound, Stephen

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hutton, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Purchase, Ken

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Jamieson, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Rammell, Bill

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Rapson, Syd

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Robertson, John

    Joyce, Eric

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Rogers, Allan

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Kemp, Fraser

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Roy, Frank

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Laxton, Bob

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Lepper, David

    Sawford, Phil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Lock, David

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Love, Andrew

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McCabe, Steve

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    (Makerfield)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Macdonald, Calum

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McFall, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Soley, Clive

    1142

    Spellar, John

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Tynan, Bill

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    (Swansea W)

    (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wilson, Brian

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Woolas, Phil

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Truswell, Paul

    Wyatt, Derek

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Mr. Don Touhig and Mr. Ian Pearson.

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Greenway, John

    Amess, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Hammond, Philip

    Beggs, Roy

    Ham's, Dr Evan

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bercow, John

    Hayes, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Heald, Oliver

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Boswell, Tim

    Horam, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hunter, Andrew

    Brady, Graham

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Brazier, Julian

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Burnett, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Burns, Simon

    Letwin, Oliver

    Burstow, Paul

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Lidington, David

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Livsey, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Loughton, Tim

    Clappison, James

    Luff, Peter

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    (Rushcliffe)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Cotter, Brian

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Cran, James

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Maples, John

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Mates, Michael

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Duncan, Alan

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Duncan Smith, lain

    Moss, Malcolm

    Faber, David

    Norman, Archie

    Fabricant, Michael

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Fallon, Michael

    Öpik, Lembit

    Right, Howard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Page, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Paice, James

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Pickles, Eric

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Prior, David

    Fraser, Christopher

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Rendel, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Gibb, Nick

    Ruffley, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Green, Damian

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    1143

    Shepherd, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Walter, Robert

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Spring, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilkinson, John

    Stunell, Andrew

    Willetts, David

    Swayne, Desmond

    Willis, Phil

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Thompson, William

    Townend, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tredinnick, David

    Mr. James Gray and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Trend, Michael

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16th January:

    Consideration and Third Reading
    1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
    2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Six o'clock.
    3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock.
    4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

    Consideration of 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 programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

    (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

    (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

    and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
    New Clause 2

      ADVICE TO ASSEMBLY AND TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
      'The Commissioner may at any time give advice to the Assembly on—

      (a) any changes which the Commissioner thinks should be made, for the purpose of securing improvement in the quality of services provided by the Assembly or local authorities in Wales in the exercise of their functions; or

      (b) any other matter connected with the exercise by the Assembly or local authorities in Wales of their functions,

      where the exercise of those functions affects children.'.—[Mr. Walter.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.16 pm
      Mr. Robert Walter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As was stated in our deliberations on the programme motion, the basic principle of the Bill is not a matter for great debate across the Chamber. In fact, there was a great deal of agreement in Committee about what we wanted to achieve. However, we failed to get the Government to agree to widen the scope of the role of the Children's Commissioner in a number of areas. New clause 2 is part of our general aim of widening the scope of the commissioner's role.
      We believe that the Children's Commissioner should have the widest possible powers available to him to enable him to carry out the role of advocate for children in Wales and to look at cases of abuse and the whole range of children's rights, particularly those contained within the UN conventions to which we have signed up. I shall not deal with those points now, because they are outside the scope of the new clause, but no doubt there will be passing references to them on Third Reading.
      The new clause deals with the advice that the commissioner can and should give to the Assembly and to local authorities. The Bill as drafted states only that the commissioner may review the effect on children of the exercise of functions of the Assembly or other people. Our new clause goes much further, allowing him to give advice on changes to improve the quality of services provided. The new clause includes all local authorities, while the schedule refers only to county councils and county borough councils.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's new clause makes an important statement about the functions of the commissioner. However, as clause 2 gives the commissioner extremely wide-ranging powers, is that not sufficient to cover the points that he raises? The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with clause 2, but I remind the House that it amends section 72 of the Care Standards Act 2000 and that it states:
      "The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is developing into a speech. I think that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will have understood the point that is being made.
      Mr. Walter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      1145
      Before tabling the new clause, we were of course cognisant of the existing wording of the Bill. However, we did not feel that it was sufficient to achieve the purpose that the new clause is intended to serve. Although I am intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), his short intervention does not convince me that the existing clause meets that purpose.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not the reason why the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is wrong that clause 2 is only a statement of the purpose or objective of the commissioner and does not actually give the commissioner powers? It is the new clause that would confer powers on the commissioner.
      Mr. Walter: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly noted that we are trying in the new clause to give the commissioner powers that were not previously conferred.
      We discussed the matter in Committee, although we did not force it, or any other matter, to a vote. In Committee, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey)—who is in the Chamber and who may want to speak—moved an amendment stating that
      "The Commissioner may make appropriate representations…about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales."
      He said:
      "It would mean that the remit of the commissioner could encompass all aspects of the rights and welfare of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales. The amendment would allow the commissioner to be a truly independent watchdog and champion of children, and would strengthen the Bill in four key ways."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 23 January 2001; c. 61.]
      We expressed our concern that the definition in that amendment was far too wide. It would have allowed the commissioner to comment on anything, including family life. We have always made clear our anxiety about such an extension to the commissioner's powers.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The motives behind the new clause are laudable. We want to improve the quality of the services. However, would the provision not create even more confusion concerning who exactly was responsible for certain matters? The new clause refers to giving advice; that is extremely subjective—such advice could easily be ignored. It refers to the quality of services. What is the quality of services? Perhaps the drafting of the Bill is at fault because it is not tight enough but perhaps there should be some reciprocity in the process.
      Mr. Walter: The hon. Gentleman is correct that there is a fault in the drafting, which is why we are proposing the new clause. I hope that, as I develop my argument, the hon. Gentleman will understand why it would be a useful addition to the Bill and to the scope of the Children's Commissioner.
      If the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire in Committee had been taken at face value, it would have allowed the commissioner to take upon himself powers to act rather like a health education authority. He would have been able to set out what was good practice and to tell parents that good
      1146
      practice was to do X, Y and Z. We do not want him to do that. It is right that he should consider child abuse in the home and, as we argued in Committee, problems in non-devolved bodies and cross-border issues. However, we were concerned that he should not somehow become the arbiter of good practice in bringing up children in normal family situations.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said in Committee, it is clear that, under that amendment, the Children's Commissioner could say anything about anything. We have made it clear that we do not wish the commissioner to be handcuffed, but confusion could arise about whether he could make pronouncements willy-nilly about family life styles and so on. That is not to say that we do not want him to refer to abuse that takes place in the home. We want his remit to cover abuse; what we do not want is for him to have a general remit that covers the various types and qualities of family life styles.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, under new clause 2, the commissioner could make representations about the adequacy of services for homosexual young people or young people who are seriously questioning their sexuality?
      Mr. Walter: New clause 2 would give the commissioner the power to advise local authorities about the services that they provide for children. If a local authority offers services specifically geared towards children who are in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that would fall within the Children Commissioner's remit. However, giving advice in those circumstances to children in a normal family environment would not fall within his remit.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd rose—
      Mr. Rogers rose—
      Mr. Walter: I am very conscious of the fact that, as we said in the debate on the programme motion, there is only a limited amount of time available. However, I understand that hon. Members want to intervene, so I shall give way—briefly, I hope—to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
      Mr. Llwyd: Is not the crux of the argument whether the definition of the word "review" includes giving advice? Local authorities and the Assembly are, by virtue of schedule 2, bodies that come under the Bill. If the Minister were to say that the word "review" included giving advice, new clause 2 might be otiose. It is up to the Minister to respond on that point.
      Mr. Walter: I shall obviously be interested in the Minister's response, but I do not think that using the word "review" necessarily means that the commissioner can advise local authorities. That is the reason why we have tabled new clause 2. We believe that the commissioner should have the power to give advice to local authorities.
      Mr. Rogers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I become very disturbed when he talks about closing down the commissioner's remit on what he terms

      1147
      normal family situations. Given that most abuse takes place within families—what happens in institutions is dramatic and should not take place—the general suggestion that families should be left alone will leave many thousands of children vulnerable. I should be very much disturbed if the commissioner's remit were not extend to that
      Mr. Walter: What disturbs me is the suggestion that most families are somehow guilty until proven innocent in such matters. Clearly, the commissioner's responsibilities include child abuse that takes place in family situations. Those powers are already vested in local authorities and social services departments; they already exist. The concern that we expressed on Second Reading and in Committee was that the commissioner would suddenly become the arbiter of good practice within a family situation. It is quite right that the commissioner should be the arbiter of good practice for children in care and children at risk, but not in a normal family situation.
      5.30 pm
      I fear that we have digressed. The new clause would cover the issues that I have mentioned and would deal with any function that the Assembly carried out in relation to children. It would also deal with incidents in which the Assembly failed to carry out a duty. There was broad agreement in Committee on that aim. I recall that the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru representatives and some Labour Back Benchers all supported the aim and moved similar amendments to try to force this principle through. The Government made little response to our arguments in Committee, but this new clause would strengthen the powers of the commissioner and would be very much in the interests of children in Wales.
      Mr. Llwyd: I shall be brief. By virtue of schedule 2A, the National Assembly and local government are bodies that come under the general purview of the clause. Therefore, the commissioner will have a right to review the exercise of functions by the Assembly and other persons, including local government.
      I support the general thrust of the new clause; at the very least, it is a good probing new clause. The issue turns on whether the word "review" includes giving advice. In my respectful submission, it is inconceivable that the word "review" would not include giving advice. If the commissioner were to review a situation that was far from tolerable or far from acceptable and he were unable to give advice, his post would be virtually worthless. He would merely report, but would not be able to make recommendations. That would fly in the face of the Welsh Assembly's document, "A Children's Commissioner for Wales", which says:
      "We want the Commissioner to ensure that children and young people are listened to and enabled to play an active part",
      and that they come into
      "policy-making, planning processes, and provision for all relevant services."
      The Minister would persuade hon. Members fairly easily if he said that the word "review" included the giving of advice. I find it inconceivable that it should not. If it does, I suggest, with respect to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), that the new clause might be otiose.
      Ms Julie Morgan: I shall speak briefly to agree generally with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd
      1148
      Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I, too, find it inconceivable that the word "review" would not cover the suggestions that are made in the new clause.
      The remarks of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on the family are a distraction from what the Bill seeks to do. It reflects badly on the Conservative party that it has taken this opportunity to throw up this issue. We should concentrate on the wording of the new clause, and I think that its provisions are covered by the current wording of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says when he winds up the debate.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I apologise for not taking part in the proceedings on the Bill's earlier stages. I once worked as a social worker in a children's home and, as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I have taken a keen interest in the early years of children's development. A few weeks ago, the Committee published a report on that subject.
      A couple of years ago in the House I raised the issue of au pairs. I mention that for the following reason. There are many areas over which the commissioner has not been given jurisdiction but where, nevertheless, children may be at risk of harm. On the other hand, the commissioner has been given jurisdiction over, for example, the behaviour of teachers. Teachers are governed by the law of the land and are extremely well trained in handling children. One of the advantages of new clause 2 is that it would be possible for the commissioner to advise the Assembly on new areas to which his jurisdiction might be extended. I have in mind the issue of child carers.
      During the Select Committee inquiry into the situation in Wales, as well as in England, we understood there to be something of a conflict. On the one hand, there is the need to have the highest quality of child care in the home so that mothers who want to work can do so. On the other hand, many working mothers do not attract a high level of pay. If the costs of paying for child care rise too much because the standards required are so high, many mothers who can now afford child care in the home will not be able to do so. If the commissioner were to recommend that his jurisdiction should extend into that sphere, I hope that that conflict, which is particularly relevant in Wales where low pay is an issue, would be borne in mind.
      An issue arose in relation to au pairs two years ago, and I warned the Government about it. It continues in my constituency. Agencies that are active there but serve the whole country tell me that there is a problem. Since August 1997, au pairs have no longer been required to register with the police once they have been here for six months. That has had a bad effect on how we keep checks on that level of child care. Although we want to encourage cultural exchange with other countries—that is the purpose of the au pair scheme—inexperienced young people come to look after our children and the authorities have no idea whether they are doing the job properly. A commissioner given an advisory role in the Assembly could look into such matters and advise the Assembly that, although the Government in Whitehall were not prepared to reintroduce a registration system for au pairs, it might be appropriate in Wales.
      The Select Committee also looked into the issue of smacking children. The all-party Select Committee has striven in all cases to reach a unanimous view by the time

      1149
      we produce a report—despite evidence today on another report. We took a great deal of evidence on smacking by child carers and whether it should be regulated by law. Many of us who instinctively feel that there should never be a law against parents smacking—what parents do to their children will always be restrained by love—nevertheless believe that there should be a legal restraint on child carers. That was the Committee's unanimous decision.
      While we were reaching that decision, and the Minister concerned knew that we were reaching it, she conducted her own focus group research of a few hundred parents and concluded, based on that very small group, that it would be unpopular. Without waiting for our recommendation, she declared that there would be no such restraint on child carers.
      Ms Julie Morgan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that at this very moment a consultation exercise is taking place in Wales about whether child carers should be allowed to smack children in their care. The indications are that in Wales it will not be allowed.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I welcome that information. I was not aware of it, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
      If we are to have a Children's Commissioner for Wales, we would want the commissioner to be involved in consultation in this area. It is not clear to me whether, in the absence of new clause 2, it will be possible for the commissioner to play a formal role rather than a series of informal roles, which I gather the Minister has intimated during previous proceedings would be appropriate. If we are to have a formal post, and it is to be paid, there should be formal responsibilities.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have only a few insights to offer. I am sure that we should not be proceeding with such haste in respect of Wales without also considering the situation in England. If the new commissioner were to be given a wider remit under new clause 2, I would hope that he could give advice to the National Assembly for Wales on how to tell the Westminster Parliament—and, so long as we have a Labour Government for the next few months, a Labour Government—how to get its act together so that we have consistent provision of advice and a consistent framework so that children moving from one part of the country to another are given a seamless service by those in charge of them.
      Mr. Rogers: As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the new clause is useful in that it enables us to consider various issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will acknowledge that any review should mean advice, or that the commissioner has the right to give advice beyond that. However, I am disturbed by some of the supporting arguments of Opposition Members, especially the continual reiterating of the argument that the commissioner does not really have a role within the family structure.
      My first reservation, as I said in Committee, is that I would hate to see a tsar of child care telling local authorities that they must do this and that. Local authorities must be left to do their job, but they have
      1150
      manifestly failed to do so. That is why we are introducing the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales. If the commissioner is to be able to do anything, he must be in a position to lay down what is good practice. He must then ensure that local authorities implement at least that minimum level of good practice.
      The Opposition are putting forward the idea that there will be somebody knocking at the door of family homes in the middle of the night and prying. That is nonsensical. As most child abuse takes place in families, there must be a way of adopting that approach eventually, but the commissioner does not need to do it. We must ensure that local authorities carry out their duties.
      Mr. Walter: By means of the new clause, 1we want the commissioner to be able to give advice to local authorities on good practice. Part of good practice is being able to pick up at an early stage any cases of child abuse which, under current legislation, would come within the remit of the local authority's social services department. My references to the commissioner not being intrusive on the family were with respect to an amendment tabled in Committee which would have given him the power to lay down good practice within families, which I think is inappropriate.
      Mr. Rogers: I beg to differ on that issue.
      I return to the substance of the new clause. I have reservations about just giving advice and the quality of the process. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the fact that there is not any feedback or reciprocity in the suggested process. One can give advice ad nauseam, but whether it is taken up and acted on is another matter. Until the commissioner has a specific function in that respect, there will always be a weakness in the general process.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall make just a few points, as most of those that I was going to make have already been made. I stress that it is important that the new clause broadens and extends powers. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) rightly pointed to amendments that I tabled in Committee, which extended powers much more widely than does new clause 2.
      Obviously, "advice" is the key word. Reference has been made to the quality and standard of services provided by the Assembly and local authorities. If there is to be a children's champion—a Children's Commissioner for Wales—he must oversee a service with an extremely high standard. My experience of local authorities in Wales is that, on the whole, they are conscientious and want to carry out their tasks. Very often, however, they are underfunded. The standards and improvements that the commissioner would, I am sure, wish to instate will sometimes not be attainable because of lack of funding.
      Two issues are involved. Crucially, funding of the National Assembly for Wales, which comes via the Welsh block, is decided here through negotiations and is eventually negotiated by the Secretary of State with the Assembly. There ought to be provision in the Welsh block to achieve adequate funding of local authorities and social

      1151
      services departments within those authorities. That funding often varies because of the different priorities of different local authorities in Wales.
      The role of the Children's Commissioner should include being able to give advice so that standards are maintained and improved. I should like to think that the new clause is a probing one, which tries to ensure that that would be brought about. By the same token, that could be solved by the Minister responding to our debate with a clear statement that "review" and "advice" are virtually the same thing, and that advice can be freely given by the Children's Commissioner for the benefit of children.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I hope that I will be able to satisfy hon. Members on the points that they have made to the Government. I respect the views of the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on the matters that he raised. However, on reflection, I hope that he, other Opposition Members and my hon. Friends will accept that there is little difference of view—dare I say, no difference?—between the Government and Opposition Members on the principle behind new clause 2. I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset will accept my assurance that the power to give the advice envisaged is already encompassed in the Bill.
      Clause 3 introduces a new power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the exercise of any function of the Assembly and of any function of local authorities, as well as other public bodies listed in schedule 2A. That power includes reviewing the effect of the provision of services. Indeed, as has been mentioned, clause 2 states:
      "The principal aim of the Commissioner is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned, the Government believe both that the commissioner will be able to report on the outcome of his reviews and that his reports can include recommendations and advice for action. I very much share the view of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—and the spirit in which it was expressed—that that is the intention of the Bill; I hope that it reflects the intention of the Opposition's new clause.
      The commissioner may also give advice and information to any person in connection with his functions. The Bill therefore provides fully for the intention of the new clause. Indeed, I envisage that giving such advice will be one of the commissioner's central functions. That is the hope of the Government and the National Assembly.
      I shall try to cover the points raised in the debate. The key point, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Dorset, relates to family policy. The National Assembly for Wales considered the matter. In its report on the Children's Commissioner, the Health and Social Services Committee recommended that the commissioner should focus on policies and services that affect children.
      In the Assembly debate on the report, which took place on 7 June last year, it was accepted that it was not the intention that the commissioner should exercise functions, such as investigations, in respect of families. Those powers are rightly held by different bodies accountable to the Assembly.
      1152
      That does not mean that the commissioner will never comment on issues that affect family life. There are many issues affecting children on which he may want to bring broad conclusions to the attention of the Assembly or, informally, to the attention of Government. I remind the hon. Member for North Dorset that his colleague in the Assembly, David Melding, helpfully clarified the fact that a fully effective Children's Commissioner will be available to offer great support to parents, without undermining the responsibility of the family in any way. Given the general principle that we held throughout Committee—that it is not the prime function of the commissioner to investigate individual cases—I hope that I have dealt with the point.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) has left the Chamber, as he contributed to our short debate. He mentioned a range of issues relating to child care. I hope that he will reflect on what I shall say when he has an opportunity to read Hansard on the train in the near future.
      Provided that the services are regulated by the National Assembly, the commissioner has a direct responsibility, under the Bill, to examine those areas. For areas not regulated by the Assembly, he does not have that direct responsibility, and those are areas that we can consider.
      I had intended to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Guildford about England, but as he is not present I shall leave that for another day. Perhaps he will reflect on his contribution and consider whether he wants to write to me about those matters. He spoke only seven or eight minutes ago, so it is important that he should allow the Government the opportunity to respond.
      The final point relates to the fact that the post of commissioner is a statutory office. It therefore has functions conferred upon it by law, but those functions are guided by the principle that the National Assembly for Wales has responsibilities, which are the areas that the commissioner will examine.
      As I said repeatedly in Committee, in the course of his work the commissioner may receive representations on a range of issues, including non-devolved matters. The commissioner is perfectly entitled to bring those matters to the attention of the relevant Government Departments. That does not give him substantive functions in non-devolved areas, nor will he have formal power to require information in relation to such matters, but he will be able to make informal comments.
      I am pleased that the hon. Member for Guildford is back. I was not trying to disparage him in his absence, but I have responded to some of the points raised in his contribution. I hope that he will read my response.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for being temporarily absent from the Chamber.
      Mr. Hanson: In the spirit of close co-operation that existed in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I graciously accept that. None of my comments were intended to disparage the hon. Gentleman, but in his absence it was difficult to respond to his comments.
      I shall deal now with the hon. Gentleman's point about England. Obviously, the Bill is the product of devolution. The National Assembly and the Government are working in partnership to establish a Children's Commissioner for

      1153
      Wales. I understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly has expressed the wish to establish a children's commissioner for Northern Ireland. The British Government will examine the implications and reflect on that as it relates to Government policy for England. The Scottish Executive will also have opportunities to reflect in due course.
      I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for North Dorset. I emphasise my belief that there is no difference of view between the Government and the Opposition on the principle of the new clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it to a Division, that he accepts my explanation and that he will ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Walter: I am conscious that only 20 minutes remain because of the pernicious guillotine under which we are working, so I shall not say an awful lot. I accept the Under-Secretary's assurances and I hope that the practice of the commissioner will allow him to give the advice that we sought to insert in the Bill through the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INSTITUTIONS
      '( ) In section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000 (examination of cases) before paragraph (a) insert—
      "(a1) requiring persons to allow the Commissioner access to institutions which include children to whom this Part applies;".'—[Mr. Win Griffiths.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the new clause. The Standing Committee's debate on access and the helpful letter that the Under-Secretary circulated to its members mean that we can deal with the proposal within the time allowed.
      During the debate in Committee, it was recognised that the hierarchy of supervisions, if I can call it that, already contained provision for the social services inspectorate to access institutions in which children were in care. However, one of the points made by the Waterhouse report was that the social services inspectorate sometimes did not do its job properly. Hon. Members were concerned that the commissioner might occasionally find it essential or worth while to visit a children's home to get a feel for the issues at stake in a complaint that he is considering, even though that might not happen often. He might want to visit an institution if a complaint had general ramifications for the way in which children's services are provided in Wales. Although it will not be the commissioner's role to investigate each of the complaints that are received, some of them may involve a general concern. He would be acting well within his powers if he were to make an investigation in respect of such complaints.
      The Committee listened to the Under-Secretary's words about the role of the social services inspectorate and his assurances that the commissioner would not need to make
      1154
      such visits very often. He told us that he would consider how the commissioner might ensure that he obtained necessary access. I would like to make other hon. Members aware of the letter that he circulated. In relation to examination of particular cases by the commissioner, the letter states:
      "given the background that will inform the Assembly's regulations on the types of cases which may be considered, I consider the possibility remote."
      It further states that it would be possible for the Assembly to make orders by virtue of regulations under section 74(3) of the Care Standards Act 2000.
      After reading the letter, I went on to read that section 74 of that Act ensures that the Assembly would have power to
      "make provision for the examination by the Commissioner of the cases of particular children to whom this Part applies."
      It goes on to state:
      "The regulations may include provision about…the circumstances in which an examination may be made"
      and
      "the procedure for conducting an examination, including provision about the representation of parties."
      On reflection, I felt that the Under-Secretary had pointed out a way in which access could be dealt with.
      6 pm
      In his letter, the Minister wrote:
      "if the Commissioner considered that his examination of a particular case would be aided by a visit to an establishment that came within his jurisdiction, there would be nothing to prevent him from making an appropriate request to the establishment. Provided the request was reasonable, I think a refusal would be very shortsighted, given the adverse publicity that could ensue."
      Could an institution refuse the commissioner permission to visit when his intention to visit related to an issue arising from the public funding of a place in that institution? I am not talking about privately funded institutions, although the Minister might wish to consider issues relating to those. I should not have thought that a publicly funded institution would have the right to refuse the commissioner entry when he was investigating a particular case. However, I am satisfied that the Minister's letter covers the main points.
      Mr. Llwyd: Although the hon. Gentleman and I are striving to achieve the same end, I take a contrary view. Surely the inspectorate, rather than the commissioner, would be responsible for any such investigation.
      Mr. Griffiths: I was trying to go a step further. We have to assume that the commissioner would want to visit only if there had been a problem with the way in which the inspectorate had conducted its own visit. I want to know whether, in the exceptional circumstances I have cited—given that the places would be publicly funded—an institution could refuse entry to the commissioner. There is also the possibility that the commissioner would want to visit an institution with privately funded places.
      I hope the Minister can respond to the points that I have raised.
      Mr. Livsey: I want to know how the satisfaction expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgend

      1155
      (Mr. Griffiths) can be wholly realised, and how we can ensure proper access to institutions and proper examination of cases.
      In the latter context, the obtaining of information, explanations and assistance is particularly important. Almost regardless of the circumstances, people should have to give the commissioner the necessary information, or require those who hold or are accountable for information to provide the commissioner with explanations or other assistance. That must enable the commissioner to have direct access to institutions.
      Standards vary in residential children's homes. Access to such homes is important. The new clause is also relevant to detention centres, although here I am casting the net a bit wider. There are not many detention centres in Wales—I know of only one—and it worries many of us that young people are often miles from their homes, culturally removed and in an alien environment that their parents are unable to visit. That issue—which is currently dealt with under non-devolved regulations—underlines the need in Wales for more facilities of that kind that the Children's Commissioner could examine. The children's ombudspeople in the rest of Europe are empowered to monitor and report on anything affecting children's human rights. Such human rights will be at the forefront of the commissioner's examination of cases that come before him.
      The Government have made it clear that the commissioner would not necessarily need the power to enter institutions, and that inspectorates already have the right of access. We debated that issue earlier. However, experience has demonstrated that the greatest risk to children exists in the small number of cases in which the parties are obstructive. The Children's Commissioner would not be involved in the work of such inspectorates, except in the case of an alleged failure.
      The Children's Commissioner should have the express power to visit, and have access to, institutions such as residential children's homes, and to obtain information from foster parents—an issue that has not been discussed a great deal—as well as to require bodies or persons to provide information. I should be grateful if the Minister would address those points, because they lie at the crux of the new clause. The jury is out on whether he will be able to convince us.
      Ms Julie Morgan: Many of the points that I was going to raise have already been covered, so I shall be brief.
      The new clause is important, because the Children's Commissioner should have the specific power of access to institutions, both public and private, in which children are cared for. The issue of the care standards inspectorate has been raised in Committee and in the House. We accept that the inspector's role, as part of a separate agency, is to inspect services for looked-after children, and that the commissioner should not duplicate that role. However, the commissioner should have a specific role in relation to failures of the inspection service.
      One of the lessons that we have learned from all the tragedies in Wales and throughout the UK is that children are not always listened to, and that the inspection systems can fail. That is why it is so important that the Children's Commissioner should have the right of access in cases where the inspection system may have failed.
      1156
      I accept what the Minister said in his letter about the refusal of admittance to any establishment being short-sighted and quite unlikely to happen. However, there have been major scandals in the care system. People who sexually abuse often target the care system and try to get jobs that provide access to vulnerable children. We must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening. Although most institutions are very caring places, we know that there is a network of abusers who target the care system. Granting the commissioner the right of access would help in the process of opening up the care system to scrutiny. It would also make a difference to the behaviour of some of the very dangerous people who sometimes get into the system.
      The Minister said in his letter that the statutory right to physical access was, by its nature, an invasive power that should be granted only when absolutely necessary. In many cases, the institutions in question would be children's homes, so we should be careful about giving people the power to enter them. However, in view of all the problems that have arisen, an invasive power—as the Minister described it—is necessary. It would not be used willy-nilly. The commissioner will work strategically and would not demand entry to children's homes as a matter of course. The new clause gives the commissioner more teeth and sends a clear signal that we will not tolerate any more abuse in children's homes in Wales. That is an important step towards safeguarding all our children in Wales.
      Mr. Llwyd: The third paragraph of the letter that has been mentioned states that the Children's Commissioner's work includes neither regulation nor inspection. I do not take much comfort from that. I accept what is said in a later paragraph about when the inspectorate has failed, but it is a bit late to act at that point, when traumatic reports will doubtless be made.
      As the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) said, we need to allow the commissioner to move in sufficiently early. There is nothing wrong with the new clause; it does not involve duplication. The NSPCC is worried about the matter that we are discussing and supports the new clause. Plant yng Nghymru—Children in Wales—also strongly favours including such a right of access in the Bill.
      As the hon. Lady said, some abusers are sophisticated, and every possible measure must be used against them. The new clause constitutes a minor amendment. If the Minister claims that it is substantial and that it somehow alters the Bill, I respectfully remind him that at least two measures that are being considered grant an invasive power. For example, the Vehicles (Crime) Bill grants a new, sweeping power to move into scrap yards and places where number plates are produced. If that is allowed, surely we can permit a power that will protect children who may be at risk. I ask the Minister to reconsider.
      Mr. Hanson: I have little time, but I shall try to deal with the points as best I can. First, as I made clear in Committee and in the letter to hon. Members, I want to ensure that the Children's Commissioner has all the necessary powers to prevent a recurrence of the circumstances that led to the Waterhouse report.
      The Bill gives the commissioner an impressive armoury. First, he will be able to inquire into, and report on, the actions of the care standards inspectorate. As I

      1157
      said in my letter, regulations under section 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 grant the commissioner the right to information, explanations and other assistance in making such inquiries. He will be able to inquire into the actions of a body that runs a children's home or an institution and the relevant social services departments. Those inquiries can be strongly supported by the right of access to information, explanations and assistance. Such powers will be more than helpful if the commissioner decides that there is a reason to investigate a social services department or even the care standards inspectorate.
      If the commissioner believed that it was necessary for him to visit premises, nothing in the Bill would prevent him from requesting a visit. It is unlikely that such a request would be refused. If that happened, I am sure that the commissioner would make a strong report to the Assembly on the reasons for the refusal and the grounds on which he wanted to examine the premises in the first place.
      In answer to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), all premises, private and public, have the right to refuse the commissioner access. However, let us put that in context. The commissioner would make such a request only because of the failure of the inspectorate system, which he examines. That system will undertake regular inspections; it is the commissioner's duty to inspect the inspectors.
      Fewer than 10 per cent. of looked-after children in Wales are in homes; most are in foster care. I hope that the system is sufficiently robust. On the basis of my letter and my comments today, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the reassurance that he has given. Perhaps the Government will reconsider such a provision in another place, but as there are probably powers to enable the Assembly to make appropriate orders, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Hanson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Labour party went into the elections for the National Assembly for Wales committed to the creation of an independent statutory Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Government have shared that commitment by acting swiftly and sympathetically to ensure that the required legislation is put in place. I believe that the whole process has been a testament to successful partnership working between the Government and the Assembly, and—to give credit to those who served on the Committee—between the parties in the House and the Assembly. We achieved a speedy passage of the Bill in Committee and on Report.
      Last year, the Government acted quickly to amend what was then the Care Standards Bill to establish the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and to give the commissioner powers that reflected the recommendations in the Waterhouse report. They relate to children's
      1158
      services regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000, and represented the speediest possible response to Sir Ronald Waterhouse's recommendation of the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. The Secretary of State's announcement, made so speedily after Sir Ronald's recommendations in February last year, is a testament to the Government's commitment to tackle child abuse, in partnership with the National Assembly.
      Wales now has its first Children's Commissioner, Peter Clarke. I take this opportunity to wish him well in his post, which he will take up on 1 March—just over a year after the publication of the Waterhouse report. The Government have introduced legislation to extend the commissioner's powers in response to the Assembly's vision.
      By adding to the scope of the commissioner's functions, the Bill will allow the Assembly to achieve its strategy for a statutory, independent commissioner with a wide-ranging role, who can be—I emphasise this strongly—a champion for all the children and young people in Wales.
      The Bill has undergone scrutiny in Committee and I thank Committee members for their constructive contributions. I accept that we have made no amendments, but I believe that there has been an exploration of the Bill and that we have achieved broad consensus around the concept of a Children's Commissioner, which has allowed informed discussion and speedy progress.
      I recognise that there are some concerns, but I hope that I have dealt with them in Committee and on Report. There will be opportunities for further discussion in another place—to the satisfaction of all hon. Members of both Houses, I hope.
      The Bill will introduce a power for the commissioner to review the effect on children in Wales of the activities of the Assembly, local authorities, health authorities and other public bodies sponsored by the Assembly. The public bodies concerned are not confined to those primarily concerned with services for children. They encompass a wide range of organisations whose actions may impact upon children, such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Sports Council for Wales and the National Museums and Galleries of Wales.
      The Bill will back up the widened role by extending the commissioner's powers under the Care Standards Act 2000 to examine cases of particular children, and to assist in particular cases. I pay tribute to Jane Hutt and her Committee in the Assembly and to the officials who have supported the progress of the Bill. Assembly regulations will be set out in detail, but the role potentially applies to the activities of all bodies referred to in the Bill.
      The extent of the commissioner's power to review and monitor arrangements for complaints procedures, whistleblowing and advocacy will also be greatly increased by the Bill. This power will be applied to a far wider group of bodies that provide direct services to children in Wales, including local authorities.
      I apologise to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) because I had intended to refer to him in an earlier discussion. He mentioned the problem of funding for local authorities. I can only say—I mean this genuinely—that the £10 billion that the Government have given to the National Assembly as part of the comprehensive spending review represents the most significant increase in public spending in Wales in my

      1159
      Lifetime—and, I suspect, in the lifetime of every hon. Member. It is for the Assembly to determine its expenditure, but I believe that much of it will go to local authorities to support the work that they are undertaking.
      The commissioner's role will extend to local authorities, the NHS, schools and training organisations. Eventually, Assembly regulations will be able to give the commissioner the power to require bodies to provide him with information if they are involved in the investigation of individual cases, or if arrangements for complaints, whistleblowing and advocacy are being monitored. Legal sanctions are already available for failure to comply.
      In performing all the functions under clauses 2 and 3, the commissioner will have principal aim of safeguarding and promoting the rights and welfare of children in Wales. That is a major step forward for children in Wales, and for the Assembly and the Government. The new functions proposed in the Bill will enable the commissioner to act as a powerful defender of the rights of children. His field will be the whole range of devolved public services in Wales, and his task will be as challenging as it is worth while. I am confident that the Bill will give him the statutory backing that he needs.
      The House, the Government and the National Assembly for Wales have to do everything in our power to ensure that the horrors dealt with in the Waterhouse report are never repeated. I believe that the establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the powers that the House and the Assembly wish him to exercise will ensure, as far as we are able to, that those horrors are never repeated.
      6.21 pm
      Mr. Walter: It is unfortunate that our proceedings on the Bill are so rushed. I shall have to keep my remarks relatively brief.
      In all our consideration of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I have been consistent and positive in supporting the concept of establishing a Children's Commissioner. I thought that the Minister was a little remiss in claiming credit for the Labour party, while failing to point out that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, established the Waterhouse inquiry, which led to this legislation.
      Last year, my colleagues who were involved in the consideration of the Care Standards Act 2000 supported the provisions establishing the Children's Commissioner for Wales. Even at that time, however, they questioned the lack of an equivalent provision for England.
      The National Assembly for Wales has expressed its concerns about some of the limitations on the commissioner's remit. On Second Reading, in Committee, and earlier today on Report, we have alluded to some of the Bill's remaining defects. There is still a lack of clarity in distinguishing between the rights and responsibilities of parents and those of the Children's Commissioner. I have no doubt that those matters will be revisited in another place.
      The Bill's most significant defect, however, arises from the devolution settlement. The public bodies in Wales that fall within the Bill's scope are listed in schedules to the Bill. However, the Government of Wales Act 1998 did not create a world in which all child abuse would be committed only by institutions subject to the supervision
      1160
      of the National Assembly, while those who administer other public bodies in Wales would be sanctified and, by statue, become no threat to children's rights. That is clearly nonsense. The immigration service, the Prison Service, the police and the Army are only a few of the many public bodies that operate in Wales but are not covered by the Bill.
      The schedules to the Bill cover the Welsh Language Board, but not Sianel Pedwar Cymru, which is probably the most significant promoter of the language. Such a nonsense would not exist if we had a children's rights commissioner for England and Wales, or for the whole of the United Kingdom. It would not exist, either, if we were to recognise in this limited Bill—it is limited to Wales—that public bodies in Wales are both devolved and non-devolved, and that the commissioner could be responsible not only to the Assembly for activities within its remit, but to the House for non-devolved matters.
      We must now look to their lordships to improve the Bill as we seek to improve it. Conservative Members both in Wales and in this place will support such change—which is entirely consistent with what has been said in the Assembly by Members from all parties who want the commissioner's remit to extend not only to public bodies that fall within the scope of the Assembly's powers, but to those within the remit of this place.
      We must not lose the plot. The Waterhouse report was about children in care, and the commissioner's primary responsibility must be towards children in care and children at risk. He has to get that right. Then we can look to him to be a key advocate in all other areas of public administration, whether they fall within the scope of the Assembly or of the United Kingdom Departments.
      In evidence to the Health Committee in January 1998, the Government said that they were considering the matter as part of a response to the UN committee on compliance with the convention on the rights of the child. The report of the Health Committee, of which I was a member, was more definite. We argued that it was right for the United Kingdom to follow the example of a number of other western countries by creating the post of a children's rights commissioner.
      We proposed a commissioner who would have the duty to promote awareness of the rights of the child; highlight ways in which present and proposed policy fails to deliver those rights in practice; conduct formal investigations into alleged breaches of children's rights; ensure that children have an effective means of redress when their rights are disregarded; and carry out and commission research relevant to safeguarding children's rights.
      The Conservative party in both Westminster and Cardiff believes that it is appropriate that the commissioner should look after children in the care of local authorities and other public bodies, but we do not believe that the Bill is specific enough about his powers.
      The Opposition have specific concerns about protecting the role of the family and of parents. We mentioned some of those on Report. The Bill will give the commissioner a wide remit, and we want to be careful not to allow him to supplant the parent. Parents should always be given the first opportunity to speak up for their children. We have said that, and we will oppose any measure that allows the commissioner to intervene unnecessarily in the family unit.

      1161
      We also have concerns that the role of the commissioner is confused. For example, he has not been given jurisdiction over many areas in which children may come to harm, but he has specific roles in respect of schools, where teachers already play a vital part in protecting their pupils' welfare.
      We feel that the Bill falls far short of the Assembly's vision. The job of commissioner is an independent post, funded by the Assembly, but the legislation makes no provision for him to be made accountable to Parliament. We believe in an effective commissioner who does not supplant parents' role, who has parents' confidence, whose role extends to all public bodies, and whose function could apply as much to England as it does to Wales.
      6.28 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Getting the Bill through all its stages in the House has been a triumph. The Government responded very quickly to the Waterhouse report, got the post of Children's Commissioner for Wales established in the Care Standards Act 2000 and, following consultation with the National Assembly, introduced the much wider-ranging powers that the commissioner now has under the Bill.
      I am pleased that the Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group, which encompasses all the major children's charities in Wales, has welcomed the Bill and is pleased with the way in which the Government have acted, although it would have liked the commissioner, in a more focused and statutory way, to have been given a much wider role. Nevertheless, they have welcomed the Bill and want it to be enacted as soon as possible.
      I should like to address some of the matters that the members of the campaign group have raised. They felt that under this Bill the Children's Commissioner would be merely an ombudsman for children's services, and that the post did not aspire to being a human rights institution. However, I believe that clause 2 gives the commissioner a basis for such an aspiration. It states:
      "The principal aim of the Commissioner in exercising his functions is to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies."
      The schedule to the Bill means that any child treated in the national health service comes under the Bill, so any child in Wales can be considered.
      Moreover, children who ordinarily live in Wales but who are treated in England, and whose treatment is paid for out of the Welsh purse, will also be covered. Therefore, I am sure that a commissioner with the necessary drive and foresight will be able to use the legislation to ensure that his office is a human rights institution. I have every confidence that Peter Clarke will be able to do that. Children cannot be divided into devolved and non-devolved parts, so it will be important for the commissioner to take that positive view.
      The Children in Wales Commissioner Campaign Group set out five essential characteristics for the commissioner. They were that he should be able to set his own agenda, that he should be able to use the framework of the UN convention on the rights of the child as a guide, that he should have a special obligation to maintain direct contact
      1162
      with children, that he should act as a spokesman for children, and that he should promote respect for the views of children throughout society. I believe that the Bill enables the commissioner to do all those things. There is certainly nothing in it to prevent him from doing them.
      In Committee, we discussed the campaign group's concerns about how the commissioner would operate. The group wondered whether he would be able to report on primary legislation and potential primary legislation, and whether he would have the right to comment freely on non-devolved matters and functions when they have an impact on children in Wales.
      The group was also concerned about whether he would be able to represent the interests of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales but who receive services, or who are accommodated, outside Wales, and whether he would be able to consider and make appropriate representations on any matters that, through consultation and other contact with children and young people in Wales, emerge as key concerns. The responses given by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box and in Committee have made it clear that the commissioner will be able to perform all the functions set out by the campaign group.
      Nevertheless, some concerns remain. The Government want the Children's Commissioner for Wales to be successful, and they have a liberal interpretation of the way in which he will operate with the powers granted by the Bill. Perhaps the campaign group is right to wonder whether in 50 years time or so, a different Government might take a less liberal view. By that time, however, I imagine that the success of the commissioner in Wales, using the powers granted by the Bill, will have meant that there will be a role for a commissioner throughout the United Kingdom, with complete statutory backing and all the powers that any of us would ever want him to have. It needs to be emphasised that the commissioner introduced by this Bill will be independent. That is very important.
      In conclusion, the problem of the relationship between devolved and non-devolved matters will mean that it is very important for the commissioner to network with, and work closely with, people such as the chief inspector of prisons. In that way, he will be able to make sure that children anywhere in Wales will have his backing when it comes to dealing with people in independent posts such as that. With close co-operation between the commissioner and those who hold similar offices, I am sure that the Bill will be a landmark in the progress that we are making to redress the terrors that children have suffered for far too long in many parts of Wales under the old system.
      A new dawn is coming, and I believe that there will be further progress. Let us give the Bill the strongest possible support, to ensure that it is enacted before the election.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. As many people wish to make a contribution to this short debate, I ask Members to be as concise as possible.
      6.35 pm
      Mr. Livsey: I will endeavour to abbreviate parts of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.

      1163
      This is an historic occasion, because the Bill is the first piece of primary legislation specific to Wales since devolution. Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a Bill to extend the powers of the Children's Commissioner.
      Children are a particularly vulnerable group, as has been demonstrated clearly by the Waterhouse tribunal report on abuse in children's homes in north Wales. I commend every member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill for the sincerity and motivation that they showed in supporting it. It has been excellent. In some respects, however, the Bill has not met the aspirations of the National Assembly. I believe that technical problems were responsible.
      The Liberal Democrats had a manifesto commitment in the National Assembly elections to appoint an independent Children's Commissioner for Wales. It is interesting that no amendments have been accepted during the Bill's passage. I believe that many of the amendments tabled in Committee followed pretty closely the wishes of the National Assembly for Wales.
      It should be the duty of the commissioner to represent the views of children and to promote, for example, the implementation of the UN convention on the rights of the child. In debates on that issue, we emphasised that such rights were better discharged at small nation level.
      The commissioner cannot comment on the decisions of courts and tribunals. That is to do with the fact that the Assembly only has secondary legislative functions and it points to some inadequacies in the Government of Wales Act 1998. The Government should, in another place, try and tease out, among all the parties in that place, the vexed issue of non-devolved matters that impinge upon children in Wales. There is no doubt that difficulties arise in the context of social security problems, legal problems and matters involving children in care outside Wales.
      There are strict limitations on the scope of the Children's Commissioner's powers, as they cover only persons and services over which the National Assembly has responsibility. Obviously, I welcome that as a massive move forward. However, we need an independent commissioner who is able to get involved in any matter that may affect the rights and welfare of children.
      The Bill broadens substantially the powers of the commissioner. He should be able to make representations on any matter affecting children in Wales, and the Bill goes a long way to achieving that.
      The amendments may have been resisted on the grounds that to accept them would in some way undermine the Government of Wales Act 1998. I do not know whether that is true, but I suspect that it may be. It would appear that the Children's Commissioner would be allowed to make representations only about those matters specifically devolved to the National Assembly. If we examine the 1998 Act, the form of the Bill is understandable.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how that point relates to the commissioner's responsibilities under schedule 2A in respect of matters that might
      1164
      otherwise fall within the ambit of the chief inspector of education in Wales, who reports back to Westminster rather than to the Assembly?
      Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to several anomalies. The correct assertion that devolution is a continuing process accounts in part for some of them.
      Mr. Hanson: To clarify the matter, the chief inspector of schools in Wales reports to the Assembly.
      Mr. Livsey: I am not surprised to hear that. I do not have the Minister's resources, so I was not well enough briefed to make that response to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn).
      It is essential that, eventually, the commissioner's powers be extended to cover primary legislation—to encompass aspects such as social security. It has been argued that if the commissioner has statutory powers to comment on non-devolved matters, he will, in effect, have the power to require information from Departments of the UK Government. I suspect that that might be a problem.
      Although the power does not seem unreasonable, strict constitutional rules are being rigorously applied owing to the fact that inadequate powers were devolved to the Assembly. It would thus seem sensible to devolve more powers to Wales and amend the 1998 Act in order to include primary legislative powers for the National Assembly for Wales. It is only a matter of time; undoubtedly, that day will come—but possibly not two or three months before a general election!
      6.42 pm
      Ms Julie Morgan: I am pleased to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. The measure is important for many reasons. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is the first Wales-only Bill to be requested by the National Assembly for Wales. In that sense, it is historic. It also establishes the first Children's Commissioner in the United Kingdom, although there are children's commissioners and ombudsmen throughout Europe. The Under-Secretary has already noted that Northern Ireland proposes to appoint a children's commissioner—I very much welcome that.
      Many children's charities have campaigned for many years for a commissioner. It is important to pay tribute to them and, especially to the Children in Wales consortium, which lobbied hard for a commissioner. It provided information to help members of the Standing Committee and is wholly committed to improving the lot of children in Wales. As hon. Members have said, children's charities in Wales have made a huge contribution to the measure.
      I am pleased that it is a Labour Government who have given time for the Bill. I welcome the cross-party support that the measure received in Committee. It formed part of our manifesto commitment, and that of other parties, during the elections to the Assembly. I was disappointed that the Conservatives debated the programme motion for the full time so that we lost valuable time for discussion of the Bill. That was not in the spirit of the Bill's passage through the House so far.
      The Bill has been universally welcomed throughout Wales and the UK. Its swift passage and the time allocated to it have been seen as a recognition of the importance that the Westminster Government attach to

      1165
      working with the devolved Assembly. The establishment of a Children's Commissioner is obviously a priority in Wales, but not in England. It is right that devolution should work in that way.
      All the children's charities welcome the Bill; the debate has been confined to the range of its powers. Although many and varied amendments were debated in Committee, the main thrust of the discussion throughout has been the commissioner's relationship to non-devolved matters. We have made progress in that respect. For example, we now know that the commissioner can comment on any matter that affects children in Wales. Of course, that includes non-devolved matters, such as children in prison. That issue has been raised frequently, because there is enormous concern in Wales about children who are in prison—in some cases, in England and far away from home—and someone must be able to speak on their behalf. We have been able to make it clear that the commissioner can comment on those issues as well as others, such as social security.
      We want the commissioner to tackle the curse of poverty that affects children in Wales. Obviously, he is to do that, he must be able to comment on the benefits system and other non-devolved issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, it is difficult to split children's issues into little pieces. The Government's thrust is to try to work with the whole person and all aspects of children's lives.
      Mr. Rogers: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not intend to suggest that the Bill has been introduced simply because of devolution in Wales. Obviously, the mechanics of devolution have allowed the Bill to be introduced, but the real reason for its existence has nothing to do with Government structures; it has to do with the fact that a horrendous scandal took place in Wales, and with the child abuse that led to the report.
      Ms Morgan: The Bill is certainly a response to the scandals in Wales, but it is not possible to deny that devolution produced the Assembly and that it has seized the opportunity to set up the commissioner. We want to treat the problems of children as a whole, so the commissioner has to have responsibility for all children in Wales, not just those who receive certain services. I would welcome further clarification on how the commissioner can respond to non-devolved matters and on how he can comment on them.
      Tremendous progress has been made. The Bill began with the proposal's inclusion in the Labour party manifesto. There has been an extensive consultation process in Wales. The National Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee's in-depth consultations led to its report, and the proposals have now reached the House. The House has extended the powers to include not only social services and children in regulated care, but all the Assembly's devolved areas.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, we hope that the Bill makes speedy progress so that it can be in place before a possible general election. That we have come this far is a triumph of everyone's working together. I wish the commissioner all the best in his new job. One of the most important things that I hope he will be able
      1166
      to do is communicate with the children of Wales—an issue raised by all the members of the Committee. We want him to hear what they have to say, because they do not have a voice or a formal means of putting forward their views. We want him to be in dialogue with the children of Wales and thus to inform life in Wales.
      Commissioners and ombudsmen in other European countries have been very successful in getting children's views heard and using them to influence legislation. Although the Assembly cannot legislate, I hope that the commissioner will influence how we run things. I wish Peter Clarke all the best and pay tribute to the Committee and all the Ministers who have brought the Bill this far.
      6.49 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: As I was the first person to mention a commissioner, back in 1993, I too am very pleased that the Bill has completed its passage through the House. However, the work has not finished. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that I was pessimistic about the prospect of amendments being accepted, but I am afraid that I was right. None of them were accepted.
      I shall rush through briefly some of the points that concern the very children's charities to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Cymru has written to us this week on two sheets of A4 paper expressing its concerns about the Bill. Although it welcomes the Bill, it does so with grave reservations.
      A provision similar to that in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 should have been included in the Bill to enable the commissioner to speak about any matter affecting children resident in Wales. The commissioner will not be able to talk about any tribunal or court decision that has been made. That is bizarre and ridiculous, and the problem still has not been addressed. Cross-border issues have not been addressed, nor has the point about including the United Nations convention in the Bill. The Assembly requested action on all those points, but that has not been accepted by this House.
      I do not wish to sour the atmosphere, but this whole back-slapping business is getting to me a little bit. We have not done half the job yet, and I hope that the other place will complete the work on several issues that concern organisations such as NSPCC Cymru. It is not politically motivated but, like reasonable hon. Members, it is concerned about the well-being of children and young people.
      I have mentioned the UN convention, and there are concerns about whistle blowing and the remit on non-devolved matters, which is covered by the provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998. All those points are important and, on Second Reading, I told the hon. Member for Bridgend that there were four principal matters for debate. Those matters remain. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity for a second and we have received assurances from him. However, I would always prefer matters to be made clear on the face of any Bill that deals with such an important subject.
      Earlier, it was suggested that the commissioner will have access to institutions, but he will have access to them only when the system has broken down. Plainly, that will be too late. There would be nothing wrong in allowing the commissioner to have access alongside members of

      1167
      the inspectorate. That would have provided further supervision over the inspectorate, which would know that, at any time, the commissioner could move in.
      Although I know that it does not sound like it, I welcome the Bill. I served on the Committee to improve the Bill. I have spoken to various children charities and they welcome the Bill as far as it goes. This is the second bite at the legislative cherry, but I hope that we do not have to return in another 12 months to find yet more time to deal with shortcomings in the Bill. None of us wants that. There are flaws in the Bill, and I hope that their lordships in the other place will address them.
      I hope that any amendments tabled in the other place will not be stamped on in pre-emptive fashion by this House. That would be wrong and contemptible. We are part way to producing a good Bill but much more work needs to be done. Despite the consensus in Committee, I am disappointed that the Government did not consider any amendments. The most glaring example is the amendment that would have included a provision similar to that in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It would have gone a long way to allaying all the niggling fears that charities still have.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we discussed outside Committee what would happen if there were a legal challenge to any of the commissioner's work that was based on what appears in the Bill and what has been said about it? If there were a dispute about the meaning of the Bill, the Minister's words could be prayed in aid to clarify its intention. A much wider view can therefore be taken of what appears in the Bill.
      Mr. Llwyd: Yes, I agree, and a 1992 case makes that point. However, is it not always better to provide clear legislation that does not have to go to the courts for consideration? Surely our job is to make plain on the face of any Bill what we want to say. We should not leave it to the whim of a High Court judge to consider what the Minister said at the time. It is far better to do things properly the first time round.
      6.54 pm
      Mr. Dawson: I will be brief, as time is extremely short. I welcome this fine Bill. We should heed some of the wise words of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), but I hear the optimism and good will expressed by my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary and the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
      The only issue that I want to raise is whether my hon. Friend the Minister considers that the Children's Commissioner as currently constituted meets the Paris principles for human rights organisations set down by the United Nations in 1993. At the heart of this is a human rights issue.
      6.55 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: It looks as though the last word will fall, paradoxically, to an Englishman. That may be no bad thing because although this is a uniquely Welsh Bill, it may well prove to be a pilot for wider replication across the United Kingdom. All of us, then, would be affected.
      1168
      I chide the Minister somewhat for claiming exclusive credit for the Government for implementing this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) made clear, it was as a result of the tribunal set up by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in 1996 when he was Secretary of State for Wales that Sir Ronald Waterhouse reported his findings.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: May I point out that, although my hon. Friend the Minister may not have mentioned that on Third Reading today, he referred on Second Reading and in Committee to the role played by the former Secretary of State for Wales, who is now the Leader of the Conservative party?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is extremely charitable and I take his point entirely. I thank him for it. I acknowledge that the measure enjoys the support of all parties, even if there are remaining concerns.
      The first recommendation by Sir Ronald Waterhouse in his report was that there should be a Children's Commissioner for Wales. Anybody who has read the report cannot have been other than moved by the sheer magnitude of the abuse that was being inflicted on young people who were often placed in the Principality not by Welsh authorities, but by English ones. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Bridgend that social services did not do their job. I hope that social services departments throughout the country and particularly in Wales do not regard the appointment of the Children's Commissioner as a substitute for the need for them to exercise vigilance themselves. That would defeat the whole object, which is to improve protection for our children. They must note that it is our intention that they should continue to do the job that the public has charged them with.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset issued a caveat that I also share, which is that the commissioner should not supplant the role of parents. All of us in the House believe that it is the principal role of parents to bring up children. We do not wish the commissioner to supplant them.
      Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that any decent, ordinary parent would welcome their children's rights being expanded, enhanced and developed by this sort of post? Does he further accept that any ordinary, decent parent has nothing whatever t o fear from the Children's Commissioner?
      Mr. Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I am most grateful to him for being sparing in his remarks to enable me to contribute. Yes, of course, I am sure that concern for children is the principal motive. However, it is important to get the balance right between the responsibilities of parents and those of society at large, to ensure that the wider needs of children are recognised.
      I am sorry if I end on a slightly discordant note. I raised this point with the Secretary of State on Second Reading and I mention it in passing in the hope that the other place may be able to deal with it. The report states:
      We draw the attention of Parliament to the abuse suffered by B between the ages of 16 years and 18 years in circumstances which appear to have made him question his own sexuality for a period. Much of the later abuse was not inflicted by persons in a position of trust in relation to him and there can be no doubt that he was significantly corrupted and damaged by what occurred.

      1169
      That was the way in which the tribunal—
      It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  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
  1170
  (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'.
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITIONS

    Didcot Structure Plan
    7 pm
    Mr. Robert Jackson: I rise to present two petitions on the same subject. My position is a delicate one because one of them calls on the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to call in plans for the proposed expansion of Didcot in my constituency, while the other asks him not to do so. It is my role, as the Member of Parliament representing these petitioners, to represent all of them—whatever their views—without fear or favour, which is why I find myself in an interesting position this evening.
    For the record, I shall describe the two petitions. One of them—it is wrapped in elegant green ribbons—comes from the campaign for a sustainable Didcot. It carries some 3,000 signatures. It prays that the Secretary of State should
    "a) direct Oxfordshire County Council to pay due regard in its deliberations to all relevant planning guidances and to follow the clear preference expressed by the Panel of the Examination in Public for the north east option; and
    b) to use his powers to call in the structure plan for determination should the county council in his view fail to pay such regard."
    The other petition, which is bound in an equally elegant green ring-binder, comes from the group of 13 parishes and carries 2,607 signatures. It prays for
    "the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to resist demands for the decision to be called in which, if acceded to, would only undermine the local democratic process in our County"—
    that is Oxfordshire—
    "and add unnecessarily to the already considerable costs to public funds."
    May I put it on record that the painful dilemma that is reflected in these contradictory petitions arises from the Government's requirement that Oxfordshire must accommodate another 40,000 houses by the year 2006, with the prospect of yet more thereafter?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the petitions. He must not make a speech.
    Mr. Jackson: I shall present the petitions, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Gas Prices
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the damage being done to United Kingdom manufacturing industry by the massive hikes in wholesale gas prices. The issue is of great concern to many Members on both sides of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who kick-started expressions of concern in the House by tabling an early-day motion a couple of months ago.
  I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe in his place, because I know that he and the Government take the issue extremely seriously. When I led a delegation of energy-intensive users to see my hon. Friend a couple of weeks ago, it was clear that he understood the issues and was determined to act sooner rather than later. We saw that action the following day, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Commissioner Monti had acceded to the Government's request to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour by companies using the interconnector pipeline between Britain and Belgium. That was a very welcome announcement indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide more detail about that investigation and—which is most important—say when it is likely to report and whether the Government will consider referring the matter to our own UK Competition Commission.
  The backdrop to this debate is a manufacturing industry with contrasting fortunes. The pain and anger felt by communities in and near steel-producing areas at Corus's recent announcement of massive job losses have been voiced both inside and outside the House. Of course, that followed the disbelief of Vauxhall workers at Luton who learned of their fate on local radio. Both are examples of the fragility of part of our manufacturing base and of appalling industrial relations. I should certainly like to add my support to the calls for legislation on information and consultation that were made in Westminster Hall last week.
  In contrast to that misery, other announcements have resulted in much celebration. Major investment by Nissan in the north-east, Ford at Bridgend and Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port have secured well-paid jobs for the foreseeable future. Without doubt, however, the most serious decision was that of Corns, the sheer scale of which will reverberate far beyond the immediate community. The difficulties have mostly been attributed to the strength of the pound and the fall in world orders. However, that is not the whole picture.
  Steel is one of five major energy-intensive users, the others of which are cement, glass, chemicals and paper. With the exception of cement, all are major users of gas and all are being ripped off. In the past year, wholesale gas prices have doubled. Gas companies are making massive profits while manufacturing is getting caned. The combined increase in the cost to energy-intensive users has added £10 million a week—or £0.5 billion a year—to the bills of those valuable and vital industries in the
  1172
  UK. The bills of the chemical industry have gone up by £300 million; those of the steel industry by £90 million; and those of the glass industry by £10 million a year.
  Paper is the greatest constituency interest for me; nearly 1,000 people are employed in the paper and board mills of Chatham and Aylesford, producing 1.4 million tonnes per annum—the largest single concentration anywhere in the UK. The paper industry has seen the cost of gas go up by £50 million a year.
  At a time when our manufacturing industry is meeting the challenges of environmental legislation and the weakness of the euro, gas prices in the UK should provide it with a competitive edge. That used to be the case. The UK's competitive gas market was achieved through a lot of hard work. We are one of the few countries to be self-sufficient in their gas requirement. Until last year, our prices were lower than those in the rest of Europe. A typical paper mill bought gas at 13p a therm, but that has now doubled to 26p. UK industry is being charged more for its gas than our competitors in Europe, where there is not a competitive market and where gas prices remain fixed to oil prices.
  The big question is why prices have risen so dramatically and why they are higher in the UK than in mainland Europe? In an attempt to explain that, the UK Offshore Operators Association—the industry body for oil and gas—last month commissioned an independent report by ILEX Energy Consulting Ltd. entitled "What influences Gas Prices in the UK and why have they increased through 2000?" That report was produced in direct response to the criticisms of many, including the energy-intensive users. It said that demand for UK gas was increasing as a result of exports to Ireland and the continent through the two interconnectors. It rightly pointed out that there is capacity to export nearly 30 billion cu m per annum. To put that in context, the report goes on to say that total gas demand in Great Britain, without exports, is currently about 90 billion cu m. What the report does not say is that last year the interconnector's full capacity was never reached—nowhere near it. The highest point, I am informed, was 17 per cent. of capacity.
  Some of the exports would have been sold under predetermined contracts, which would not have affected price. One must ask what proportion of the amount exported was under predetermined contracts. We do not know. Only those who own and run the interconnector, which in the main are the gas producers, know. Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Commission will examine that issue in its investigation?
  The UK competitive market, with a self-sufficient supply, has its price determined by a market in Europe that is not competitive. I know that my hon. Friend is determined to press ahead in Europe so that competition will be opened up. That may be years away, and in certain quarters it will be resisted. In the meantime, why should UK manufacturing suffer?
  According to the industry's independent report, to which I referred earlier, supply is outstripping demand, even when exports are taken into account. The authors of the report do not know why such a large gap has opened up between the UK and Zeebrugge prices. The effect of the interconnector at best provides inadequate evidence to justify the gas price increases, and at worst is being

  1173
  used as a means of manipulating the market. If the interconnector was affecting the market, why has cheaper gas not flowed back to the UK?
  The effect of the rises is hitting manufacturing, causing uncertainty and denting confidence among high gas users. One of the larger mills operating in the UK employs technical experts to study the market for the best prices. All have been unable to provide a satisfactory reason for the increases. It needs to be clearly established whether companies are using the interconnector to push prices in the UK up to European levels and above.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was right to act as he did. I know from conversations with those in the industry that his response was warmly welcomed. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether the investigation will examine ownership? There should be greater transparency in the gas industry, particularly as there are only a few key players whose interests extend throughout the European natural gas industry.
  The dominant forces in the European industry are four large producers, which have a substantial downstream interest. BP Amoco, which has 19.1 per cent. of UK output, has a 25.2 per cent. share in Ruhrgas, the dominant German company. Exxon Mobil accounts for 15.2 per cent. of UK output, and has a 25 per cent. stake in Gasunie, the Dutch monopoly, and 22.5 per cent. in the dominant German company. Shell, which accounts for 9.4 per cent. of UK output, has a 25 per cent. share in Gasunie, 15 per cent. in Ruhrgas and 25 per cent. in Thyssengas, the German regional monopoly. TotalfinaElf, which accounts for 8.1 per cent of UK output, has a 50 per cent. share in both the French transmission companies. It is no coincidence that these main players also own the interconnector. It is a pretty cosy picture.
  For some time, experts have been expressing concern to the Government about the European structure. My hon. Friend's predecessor received a letter from Mr. Patrick Heren of PH Energy Analysis Ltd., who is highly regarded in the field. He stated:
  "I do not suggest that these companies conspire together to maintain prices. They do not need to. The European gas industry is structured for their benefit. This structure is not conducive to effective competition which the European Gas Directive is intended to foster."
  Does my hon. Friend agree with that observation, and does he believe that the existing structure is conducive to achieving the competitive market for gas that we want to see throughout Europe?
  Soaring gas prices have consequences that are more damaging than is immediately apparent. In the paper industry, there have been important moves towards installing more combined heat and power plants in mills. Almost 100 mills operate in the United Kingdom, 20 of which have invested in CHP since 1990. The average cost of a CHP plant is about £10 million. Such investments take years to pay back, but competitive gas prices have been an incentive. Some investments have been much larger. Shotton paper mill, which has a capacity of about 500,000 tonnes of newsprint per annum, spent £80 million on a new CHP plant.
  The climate change levy is an added incentive for paper mills to invest, as it exempts good-quality CHP. However, I know of two UK paper mills that have cancelled the
  1174
  development of CHP plants since gas prices rose so dramatically. CHP development is crucial to our commitment to cut CO, measurements to 20 per cent. of 1990 levels. In 1990, before the installation of a CHP plant, Aylesford Newsprint in my constituency produced 1.2 tonnes of carbon for every tonne of paper. After the installation of the plant, 0.44 tonnes of carbon are produced for every tonne of paper. The site is operating some 450,000 tonnes of paper every year, so the savings to the environment are clear.
  A finger of suspicion is pointing at gas producers. Manufacturing believes that it is being ripped off by anti-competitive practices. Many questions need answering, including those on the ownership structure in Europe. We have plenty of gas suppliers and, as I said, supply is outstripping demand, but our industries our suffering. The matter needs resolving quickly if we are to avoid manufacturing job losses. The Commission's investigation should be concluded sooner rather than later. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the Government will impress upon it the urgency of the matter.
  7.17 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mr. Peter Hain): It is a pleasure to appear before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are a Welsh Deputy Speaker and your distinction is increased by the fact that your husband comes from the Neath valley in my constituency.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing a debate on this important topic. I acknowledge his expertise and the energy that he puts into representing his constituency interests and the concerns of industries throughout the country, for which he has eloquently spoken. I valued the meeting that he initiated on behalf of the energy-intensive users group. Following that meeting, I received from the Confederation of European Paper Industries a well-argued submission that I have studied carefully.
  I am all too aware that many important industries are paying substantially more for gas than they did this time last year, and that that has potentially serious consequences for competitiveness. I welcome this opportunity to state clearly the major causes of the price rise and the action that the Government are taking to address the problem.
  An important cause of the doubling in wholesale gas prices has been arbitrage across the interconnector with high oil-related gas prices in Europe. The lack of liberalisation and competition in Europe and the consequent lack of competition among different gas companies meant that when oil prices went up, European gas prices did also, and British prices followed.
  When the interconnector was commissioned in 1998, it did not have a significant upward pressure on prices because oil-related gas prices in Europe were very low at that time. However, as oil prices increased, so did continental gas prices. Trade and the opportunity for trade across the interconnector have caused the British price to rise as well. We have experienced not only physical interconnection, but economic and price interconnection.
  Prices have also been affected by the tightening of gas supply and demand as gas has been exported to Europe. The difference in price between the UK and the continent

  1175
  during 2000 meant that exportation was very attractive and record levels of gas went across the interconnector. Gas demand was 20 per cent. higher on some days last year than it was in 1999. This winter there has also been upward pressure on prices because of slightly lower North sea production than was planned, owing mainly to breakdowns. Imports through the interconnector since October have often helped to meet demand as European prices have been passed straight through.
  The situation is serious, and my hon. Friend was right to spell it out, but the Government have been active right across the gas market—from offshore production to the wider European market—in addressing the problems. I shall briefly outline our proposed three-point strategy before discussing the individual parts in more detail.
  The key is to increase liberalisation and competition in Europe. The Government want the Stockholm summit in June to drive forward full liberalisation and reform of the gas market in Europe. We are also taking every opportunity to raise the need for liberalisation with our opposite numbers in other member states. This will, of course, not be achieved overnight, but it is at the heart of the problem and must be tackled.
  We are looking at ways of improving the functioning of all parts of the market. That involves increasing the amount of information available to the market, both across the onshore-offshore interface and from the interconnector, to achieve full transparency. A well-informed market is an efficient market. Such action will help the market to work more effectively by, for example, enabling it to prepare when it sees that there are planned maintenance outages in the North sea.
  We are also acting against potential anti-competitive behaviour, a phenomenon to which my hon. Friend drew attention. The operation of the interconnector has been giving cause for concern for some time, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore wrote to Commissioner Monti requesting a Commission inquiry. The Commission has now indicated that it will look into the matter. We want the report that he will deliver to be finalised as swiftly as possible. This demonstrates that we shall not hesitate to refer any evidence of any kind of anti-competitive behaviour to the appropriate competition authorities.
  It is vital for the interconnector to work in a transparent and efficient manner. Therefore, in a separate but related exercise, we are working with the interconnector shippers to establish whether more information can be made available to the market. We believe that that will produce a tangible improvement in the market. I know that some have suggested simply closing down the interconnector as a solution to all our problems, but that is not practical: closing it down would put us in breach of our European Union and wider international obligations, as well as exposing the Government to the possibility of civil action from interconnector shippers for many millions of pounds.
  Moreover, the interconnector has a crucial function in regard to security of supply. Our forecasts suggest that Britain will be a net importer of gas by 2005, although there are indications that that may happen earlier. When the time comes, we shall rely heavily on interconnector imports; meanwhile we already need to draw on supplies imported through the interconnector from time to time.
  1176
  For example, this winter we imported for nearly two months—from November to January—and we are currently importing again.
  Following our agreement at the Lisbon European Council meeting last year to speed up liberalisation across the European Union, the Commission will shortly propose a directive to bring about a properly competitive single energy market. We welcome that, and the Commission has the Government's full support in pressing ahead with the Lisbon-Stockholm process, leading to early full gas market liberalisation. The Government also welcome the measures that the Commission has been taking from time to time to challenge restrictive provisions relating to the supply of gas to the EU from other areas and other states, including Norway and Algeria. Progress in that respect is essential if we are to achieve the full "gas-to-gas" competition towards which we are all working.
  As well as ensuring that the European market works, we need to ensure that the British market works and is seen to work, and is seen as being fully transparent. We have therefore been working with offshore companies and interconnector shippers to see what scope there is for making more information available. I am encouraged by the co-operative spirit that we have seen so far, and believe that it may result in a tangible benefit to all players in the market.
  We will act forcefully against anti-competitive practices, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend. If there is evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, the Director General of Fair Trading, John Vickers, has strong powers to act, and should he find evidence of any anti-competitive behaviour prohibited by the Competition Act 1998, he will act promptly.
  We acknowledge that recent higher gas prices add to the burdens on businesses, and we take seriously their concerns on the matter. However, the climate change levy is being introduced as part of our response to the real, long-term threats posed by global warming.
  The recent upward movement in gas prices reflects short-term fluctuations in the markets, but the climate change levy is intended to produce significant carbon savings, up to and during the Kyoto target period of 2008 to 2012. That mechanism will stay in place, and we are working with industry—particularly highly intensive users of energy—to minimise the impact of the levy on them. The Chancellor has introduced an approach that will achieve that.
  As part of the climate change challenge, the Government are serious about their target of achieving at least 10,000 MW of combined heat and power capacity by 2010. That will make an important contribution to meeting our climate change objectives set out at Kyoto. The Government will be consulting on a draft strategy shortly, setting out measures already announced, and other new ones that will help to achieve that target.
  High gas prices may have had an impact on investment in combined heat and power. By affecting the relative price of gas and electricity, they may make CHP less attractive in the short term. However, our commitment to CHP is long term, and high fossil fuel prices tend to sharpen commercial incentives to use those fuels as efficiently as possible. Recently, I had a meeting as a result of representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), because CHP forms an important part of the electricity market in Slough, and we

  1177
  want to safeguard its interests. We are working with the entire industry to advance its opportunities and protect it against uncompetitive attack.
  The paper and board industry occupies an important place in the UK economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford drew our attention to that most appropriately. The industry has some 20,000 employees in about 90 mills spread all over the country and contributes more than £4 billion in gross value added to our GDP. Despite that enormous contribution and large turnover, the profit margins of the industry are very small—minute, in fact. I was given a figure of about £150 million by the delegation from the paper industry that my hon. Friend brought to see me.
  The industry has already spent an extra £50 million as a result of this enormous explosion in prices in the gas market. That represents a big squeeze on profits, and it is unsustainable. I recognise that, and we want to work closely in partnership with the industry to ensure that it will not be affected in too dramatic a fashion as a result of that squeeze.
  Although the industry faces competitive challenges in a global marketplace and employment is contracting, output has continued to increase and productivity has been increasing substantially, much to its credit. Nevertheless, I recognise that the industry faces a number of economic
  1178
  challenges to ensure its future strength. We want to put in place an action plan with the industry to overcome those challenges, and I hope that my hon. Friend and others will work with us to achieve that.
  In summary, I agree with my hon. Friend about the seriousness of the matter. The Government recognise the damage caused by the artificial behaviour in the gas markets, which is difficult to explain. We have identified the principal causes and are well on the way to providing solutions. I want to work with the gas industry, the associated oil industry and those who have to pay the increasingly high prices, to tackle the problem as quickly as possible.
  I call on our colleagues in the European Union to work with us because an uncompetitive gas market does not benefit Britain and is also damaging to Europe's long-term future. We are suffering although we are innocent. We have put our house in order and reduced gas prices, but are suffering from artificially induced pressure on gas prices.
  I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House and for the opportunity to set out the Government's action programme, which is clear and dynamic and shows that we are committed to solving the problem. We will leave no stone unturned.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Social Security Fraud
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. Rooker.]
2.31 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are pleased to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are glad to have the benefit of your chairing our debate, which, given the current turnout, I suspect will not be too acrimonious.
The Government thought that it would be useful to have a wide-ranging debate on social security fraud. As hon. Members know, the Social Security Fraud Bill is going through another place. The subject is touched on only briefly at Question Time and I do not think that we give it the time that it deserves. The Department of Social Security's annual budget is about £100 billion, and social security fraud and error cost about £2 billion a year. Our duty is to ensure that the system is secure from those who seek to attack it, from fraud, from error in the Department, which can occasionally occur, and from genuine errors that claimants may make. The money must go to the right people, particularly those who need it most.
I shall draw attention to what we inherited in respect of social security fraud and the results of the action that we have taken so far. I shall then say a little about what needs to be done in future, after which I shall refer to the Social Security Fraud Bill.
Our best estimate is that social security fraud and error cost at least £2 billion a year. I see that that comment has made the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raise his eyebrows. To put the problem into perspective, we spend £1.7 billion running the Benefits Agency.
From time to time, various estimates are given of the level of fraud, such as between £2 billion and £4 billion, as well as the famous figure of £7 billion. As I have said in answer to parliamentary questions, the £2 billion is what we know about. Another £2 billion may be regarded with a high level of suspicion and there is a weak suspicion—sometimes, no more than a hunch— about another £3 billion, which is how the figure of £7 billion came into the public domain. We have said repeatedly that we do not think that that is the amount of fraud. I want to put the debate into the context of what we can measure.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Clearly, it is important to restate the position. Does the Minister dismiss out of hand the claim by the Public Accounts Committee that, in reality, £9.5 billion is involved?
Mr. Rooker: To be honest, the short answer is yes. I have not come here to pick a fight with the Public Accounts Committee, but I have never seen any
304WH
estimates of social security fraud at anything like that level. I have explained how the £7 billion figure is made up; there are hunches, a weak suspicion—an inkling. I am giving the figure that we work on: the minimum that we know of is £2 billion, which in itself is a substantial figure. It is unacceptable and we must stem the flow.
Fraud is not, as it is often portrayed to be, a victimless crime or a small-time activity. It is true that a good deal of it arises from people working down the pub a couple of nights a week or at the bingo hall and claiming benefit, which, of course, is unacceptable, but more often than not fraud is planned and calculated—in some cases, it is highly organised—and diverts public money from other objectives.
I should say that something like three quarters of the population have contact with the Department in some way, if we include child benefit, pensions, disability benefit and all the other benefits, and the overwhelming majority of people in every sector are honest. If there are errors, they will make that clear and sometimes say, "I think I'm being paid too much." Therefore, fraud relates to a small minority, but that still amounts to a large number of people.
When we started to look at this issue in 1997, we identified four key weaknesses. We repeatedly make the point that, although we are critical of the previous Administration, in 1995, they started to measure fraud—measurement did not start in 1997. There were the beginnings, the gleam in the eye, of a strategy, even at the fag-end of the previous Administration.
Measurement was attempted in 1995, but the scale of the problem was not understood. There was no overall strategy and no targets or objective measures of success. The only measure—it was a key weakness—was the amount of fraud detected, so those paying out benefits sometimes had a perverse incentive not to worry about preventing fraud: the more fraud entered the system, the easier it was to find. They could say, "We've got a lot of fraud. Aren't we good because we've added it up?"
There was also—I think this is generally accepted—totally inadequate investment in information technology. I have described the computer systems at the Department as rubbish. They are vastly improving day by day under this Administration, whose largesse on capital expenditure will revamp the whole of the Department's IT infrastructure. Nevertheless, past investment is a real problem; it was obviously a problem for the previous Administration. The IT system did not allow us to draw together information on people's claims and to guard the system. A local authority worker processing housing benefit claims did not have automatic access to details of existing or previous awards of income support, for example.
There was a culture that saw security, fraud and detection as a cul-de-sac: it was not an integral part of the system but a bit of a bolt-on. Our assessment of income support claims in 1997 was that 40 per cent.—two out of five—were paid without enough evidence. That is a substantial number.
I turn to some of the things that we are trying to do to get a grip on the system after a good deal of neglect. We have invested more in policing the welfare state; we make no bones about that. We have tightened the gateways to benefit and devoted more staff to front-line

305WH
offices where they can check claims more rigorously. We published a strategy document, entitled "Safeguarding Social Security", in March 1999. For the first time, we had a plan to secure the system from the first claim to the final payment. We established a system that provided continuous measurement of levels of fraud and error, especially in income support and jobseeker's allowance. That system will be extended to housing benefit from April this year.
We have set targets for reducing the amount of fraud in the system. We have published targets and must be judged on our success in reaching those targets. We have raised our targets for reduction of losses due to fraud and error in relation to income support and jobseeker's allowance to 25 per cent, by March 2004 and 50 per cent, by 2006. The National Audit Office supports the approach of setting targets for reducing fraud and error, and will report to the Public Accounts Committee on that and a variety of other anti-fraud measures.
We have introduced much tighter checks at the gateway to income support before money is paid out. We have already halved the percentage of income support claims that are paid without enough evidence—20 per cent, are so paid, down from 40 per cent. I accept that that is still too high, but that change alone saves £1 billion during the current Parliament, which is not to be sniffed at. We have given local authorities on-line access to essential benefit information held by DSS systems. That means that 10 million forms previously sent by post from the Benefits Agency to local authorities are now sent electronically. That speeds up the process and makes it far more secure.
We have introduced the verification framework, which requires local authorities to perform tougher identity and evidence checks on housing benefit claims. No doubt I shall hear from hon. Members about some of the difficulties that some local authorities have had. The degree of competence and commitment in local authorities is variable, to say the least. Nevertheless, we are locking down avenues for fraud in the system. We have stopped housing benefit fraudsters redirecting their mail from false addresses.
It is appropriate to tell hon. Members—it may avoid lengthy interventions— that we have introduced our own staff training. It is not just something to give them when they have nothing else to do. We are introducing professionalism to anti-fraud activity through the Professionalism In Security programme—PINS. In the Benefits Agency, Inland Revenue, Department for Education and Employment and Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, 3,000 staff have started PINS foundation training. By March this year, more than 2,000 staff will have completed the training and been awarded the accredited counter-fraud officer qualification. From this April, we are offering PINS training to up to 900 local authority investigation officers.
The training is of such good quality that certain advertisements for anti-fraud jobs in the national health service and Customs and Exercise are listing PINS training from the DSS as an advantage or requirement. That is wholly good for government and public money,
306WH
but my Department is carrying the burden. We do not want to lose too many of our staff, having put much effort into training them.
Mr. Pickles: Can the Minister explain why, given such excellent training, the number of prosecutions for benefit fraud dropped dramatically last year in comparison with previous years?
Mr. Rooker: I shall come to prosecutions in a moment. It is a fair question and I have a good answer.
I could speak about training in more detail, but it takes the form of module courses and is organised in conjunction with the university of Portsmouth. We are making sure that our staff are professionally qualified to search out fraud and error and to deal with the problem sensitively, which ensures that a civilised system operates and that people are dealt with accordingly.
The other point that is worth mentioning is that we asked for a report on organised fraud from John Scampion, which we have received. We have implemented most of his recommendations and he is content with our approach so far. Work has begun to strengthen the organised benefit fraud investigation service, to establish a national fraud intelligence unit, to set up joint working arrangements with local authorities and to replace the weekly benefit savings regime for local authorities. Those are four key areas.
That work has included the appointment of two senior managers from outside the DSS, which we thought was important. They both joined the Department at approximately the same time in autumn 2000: John Alpass is head of fraud intelligence and Richard Kitchen is chief investigation officer. Both came from outside the DSS. That is an important aspect of what we are doing to change the system.
I shall now look at the results of our new approach. Figures published last November showed that losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance had fallen for the first time. For benefit paid between April 1999 and March 2000, the saving was estimated to be about £60 million. In 1999–2000, about 22,000 people were sanctioned or prosecuted, an increase of 60 per cent, compared with the previous year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar cannot dismiss that. We introduced sanctions, which were not available under the previous Government. Sanctions and prosecutions must be seen in the round. The sanctions are highly effective: payback of the benefit, plus a 30 per cent, top-up. People are given a choice. We say, "We fingered you. We'll sanction you or prosecute. You can pay up what has been overpaid" —to put it politely —"and a 30 per cent, sanction on top of that." Many people choose to do that. It avoids the consequence of court appearances. We are dealing with more people than ever before by having the opportunity to sanction as well as to prosecute. One has to look at sanctions and prosecutions in tandem.
The hon. Gentleman will say that, one year, prosecutions may vary. They were down a few hundred, perhaps a thousand; I do not have the figures directly in front of me — they are in my folder. However, sanctions and prosecutions cannot be treated in isolation. Some

307WH
of those people were given the option: it was their choice to be sanctioned. We do not force the sanction on them. The alternative is to be prosecuted. That is an effective way to deal with fraud cases. We are able to recover more money and to put the squeeze on more people. I hope that they will be less likely to commit fraud again.
We are piloting specialist identity checks. Since June 1997, there has been an operation in Balham — I have been there twice in recent months—to use more intensive questioning and investigation when people apply for national insurance numbers. The interviews are very structured. I sat in on one. I was champing at the bit to jump in with the next question, but the interviewers are highly trained and skilled and have a pattern to go through.
That was only a pilot in Balham, but it has led to more than 200 arrests. Later this year, we shall be rolling out nationally the procedures that we have been using in Balham. By definition, London is a big centre for national insurance number applications from people doing casual work, people from overseas, people who have come in casually and, in some cases, people who have come to this country by surprise as asylum seekers. Self-evidently, London has a big transient population, as has every capital in the world. Nevertheless, the greater intensification of those interviews will assist greatly in ensuring that we gain better control over the national insurance number system, which is highly managed in the first place.
Of the 409 local authorities that we deal with regarding benefit, we have managed to supply 404 with on-line access to essential benefit information owned by the Department of Social Security —the obvious question is which are the five that we have not managed to supply. At least one remote access terminal has been provided to each authority. Some authorities have more than one. That is a substantial help in cross-checking information.
Mr. Pickles: I ask a straightforward question arising from the study in Balham. Approximately 14 per cent, of all cases involve some kind of fraud or customer error. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the balance is between them?
Mr. Rooker: Off the top of my head, I cannot, but I will take advice on that question. If I can provide a breakdown, I will be happy to share it with colleagues.
Approximately 250 local authorities have signed up to perform tougher verification checks on housing benefit claimants. That is not such a high success rate- a little more than half. However, we are making a further £160 million available over the next three years to ensure that 85 per cent, of housing benefit expenditure is covered by the verification framework by 2004. That is intensive work. I understand the pressure that is put on local authority staff" and I pay tribute to them. Housing benefit is very complicated-much more so than income support.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I am sure that the Minister knows that the complexity of housing benefit is one of a number of reasons given as to why fraud is at such a high level. Although we have heard about various
308WH
initiatives and sanctions, how will the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security deal with the problems raised by the complexity of the system?
Mr. Rooker: Briefly, a White Paper on housing has been published in which aspects of housing benefit are touched on. I do not deny that the system is ripe for reform. However, I was astonished to learn—I never picked it up as a constituency Member—that 409 local authorities pay housing benefit, which means 409 application forms.
Mr. Pickles: Absolutely.
Mr. Rooker: I like the way the hon. Gentleman said, "Absolutely." Long before your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, I sat on the Standing Committee that converted rent rebates to housing benefit in 1981 or 1982, when Hugh Rossi was the Minister. The Government forgot to say, "We'll have a standard form for this."
We are on the verge of improvement. The benefit fraud inspectorate, which provides a lot of assistance in going into local authorities to check systems, is about to publish a form that it has devised following consultation. The form has a crystal mark award for plain English. It is not as short as the new minimum income guarantee form, but it is a lot shorter than it could have been. Local authorities will be encouraged to use the form, although it will be voluntary-we have not taken legislative powers to force them to do so.
Some local authorities' housing benefit forms did not even require claimants to declare their income. One would have thought that that was minimal information. We are working on it, but the nature of housing benefit means that the problem is bound to be complicated. Many variables need to be dealt with, including the income and family circumstances of claimants and the rent system that is in place, or whatever arrangement the landlord has with the tenant.
More than 350 local authorities have signed up to a scheme in conjunction with the Royal Mail that is designed to stop housing benefit fraudsters redirecting their mail from false addresses. I am annoyed that there is no follow-up because we pay for it—central, not local, Government pay. We are trying to work in partnership with local government, not to use a heavy hand. We are now cross checking—the warning needs to go out to everyone concerned—more DSS records and other Government-held records than ever before, which has already saved £150 million.
We shall soon begin a cross-check on benefit and tax records, particularly those relating to the building industry. We are assessing the high-risk aspects and, as everyone knows, the building industry is high risk. No factories are involved. The workshop is different. People move around the country. Employers come and go. They come in various sizes and, as is well known, factors such as tax exemption certificates are involved.
We shall cross check our tax records with benefit records for people in the building industry. We shall shortly start using the stronger powers that we have to inspect employers' records to check whether people are working while claiming benefit as unemployed. As a

309WH
caveat, all our proposals are legal and above board and fully consistent with data protection legislation and the European convention on human rights.
Increasingly more information that is held by the Government is being matched. That was prevented in the past by the rubbishy computer systems inherited from the previous Administration. When I explained to one of my constituents why she was being asked some questions and said that one computer was being checked with another, she said, "Mr. Rooker, the computers is kissing each other." She was damned right. They are. When variations exist, we examine the matter at local office level to check it.
We must consider what more needs to be done. Through tighter checks and targeted plans, we are starting to turn the corner, although I am not saying that we are winning the battle—far from it. The fraud figures that we are now using are moving in the right direction.
Mr. Pickles: The Minister says that everything is above board and compliant with data protection legislation. Why does he think that Elizabeth France, the Data Protection Registrar, is so hot under the collar about the Government's proposals? She says:
"As I see them, I am unable to support the proposals in the form in which they are currently made."
Mr. Rooker: I shall come to that in a moment because it relates to the Bill being considered in another place, and I want to end on that aspect. Our proposals are legal and above board. The Government do nothing illegal. We are operating within a framework, but I shall deal with the Bill separately.
We are investing money in fighting fraud. We have a large programme protection budget in the Department, but we must go further. We are setting up a national fraud intelligence unit to ensure that all available information is used strategically to steer the campaign against fraud and to ensure value for money, targeting areas of highest risk. We are tightening the management of fraud investigators to ensure that they concentrate on the most fruitful cases.
We plan to launch a national advertising campaign to get across the message and the culture that fraud is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of our pilot scheme in the north-west to try to change the culture. It is unacceptable to defraud the system, as the effect of doing so is fewer teachers, doctors, social workers and road repairs. Such fraud is not victimless. The victim is public expenditure for other worthy causes.
From April, we shall phase in a new incentive scheme to give more generous rewards to councils that act to prevent fraud from entering the system. It has been difficult to arrive at a system that does not allow fraud to enter the system, or people to turn a blind eye. We must strike the right balance between carrot and stick.
I do not want to open a new debate, but, as hon. Members know, I have always been a frank Minister who is willing to debate such issues. We are moving towards the payment of benefit by automated credit transfer, which will be introduced from 2003 to 2005. We are doing that for lots of reasons, one of which is to
310WH
combat fraud. We estimate that we shall save at least £100 million through the changeover to electronic transfer of money. Perhaps hon. Members have, like me, had the opportunity to see some of the highly sophisticated forgeries of order books, which involve removing the rivets, reprinting the books and sending them out with various identities. One person with a dozen books might catch a train from London to a town 70 or 80 miles away and nip round the various post offices and streets in that town. That person would make the book look as if it were used, so that it was not queried. The operation is highly sophisticated but, when we begin using electronic transfer, we can begin to eat into that. We expect to save a considerable sum through automated credit transfer.
Mr. Andrew George: I should be grateful for clarification, as there is a genuine concern that automated credit transfer may result in more fraud. Because the system will depend on technology, people will have more chance fraudulently to impersonate others and to use the necessary technology to withdraw the benefits.
Mr. Rooker: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien.
The hon. Gentleman is right. The nature of the fraud will be different. We shall have to be careful. One third of all benefits is paid through ACT now, two thirds are not—that means millions of benefits. It is no good simply transferring them and then leaving the situation to look after itself. Organised crime will migrate from one system to the other—criminals will find other ways to commit fraud.
People may choose not to collect their benefit weekly at the post office, although that will still be an option. When we market ACT, more people's benefits will be paid directly into their bank or building society, so they will no longer see the postmaster. Local information will no longer be available to them. There will not be any personal contact with the claimants, as there is now, so we will have to build anti-fraud measures into our ACT strategy, for the time when all those millions of benefits are paid differently. That is an integral part of the ACT planning.
Some 140,000 claims will have to be transferred from paper-based to electronic systems every week until the work is complete. Fraudulent claims have already been made through the ACT system. I will refer later to an item in the Social Security Fraud Bill, now in the other place, which needs to be reinforced for ACT. I want to keep the issue of the Bill as a separate, discrete part of my speech.
Extra investment is being made available for information technology and front-line staff. In the 2000 spending review, the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed vast largesse by investing in massive capital expenditure programmes, the like of which could not have been dreamt of by the previous Administration. He was able to do that because of his successful management of the economy.
Mr. Pickles: It says here.
Mr. Rooker: No, it does not say that here-those who draft my speeches would never write that. That is me speaking as a loyal hack of the Labour party.

311WH
As everyone knows, there is a substantial capital expenditure programme. Some £2 billion is being spent on modernising the Department of Social Security with the introduction of good computer and IT systems, better trained front-line staff and better directed staff. That is crucial.
We are beginning by installing new computer programmes for the Child Support Agency and we are planning improvements to pension credit arrangements. It is important that our systems can talk to each other. In the past, each new benefit had its own computer system. No one thought of linking them up.
Mr. Andrew George: Yesterday, the Government announced—although, in my view, it was not a new announcement—their intention, should they win the general election, to address the economic tests by which the United Kingdom would enter the euro. In preparing its computer system and software, has the Department itself taken into account a potential change to the euro?
Mr. Rooker: It takes a Liberal Democrat to ask that question. I had not expected a debate about the euro. However, I did ask—in another context—about that matter. The Department has a preparatory programme, as do all other Departments and the public sector as a whole.
Our economy is highly integrated and diversified. Adopting the euro would change many of the systems. I shall be careful about what I say about the timing, but all new systems are ordered and designed to cope with the euro. When I raised the matter some months ago, I thought in my simplistic way that all it meant was changing the factor—tweaking the system, with so many euros to the pound. However, that cannot be done with the systems that we inherited. The computer systems that are on order for the new programme—the Child Support Agency and the issuers of the pension credit will be among the first to receive them—will be euro-friendly, whether or not we join the euro. Obviously, we make payments abroad; we pay retirement pensions to 1 million people abroad.
Our systems will be adequate. If and when the decision is made, after the economic tests have been looked at, after the Cabinet has agreed, after Parliament has agreed and after the British people have voted in a referendum, which the Conservative Party would deny them, the transfer programme will be massive. The answer to the question is yes. We will be okay-if and when we join the euro—with our new systems. The old systems would be a nightmare—paper-based systems and computer systems that are not geared up.
Mr. Pickles: That is a helpful answer. I accept the explanation about the British people, the fullness of time and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that there is a programme, which will take care of future events. Will he confirm that the programme will begin the process of dealing with historic records, which is important, particularly in the management of fraud? Has the Department calculated the cost of rounding up or rounding down figures when converting into euros? Has a decision been made on the exchange rate? If so, can he give us an indication of the cost?
Mr. Rooker: The answer is probably no. I have no figure for that. We are here to discuss fraud. There is a
312WH
lot of fraud in the European Union, which is one reason why the Court of Auditors' reports must be taken seriously, but the question of how the Department would cope with the transfer to the euro if we were to join is a legitimate one. The systems that we inherited would cause great difficulties. They would mean paper-based administration. However, Government and the public sector are planning for the possibility that we join the euro. People ordering new IT systems naturally take account of that and build in specifications. I cannot give a cost off the top of my head for the new systems because we do not know how soon the systems will be available, the date of entry into the euro, or how much will be left of the old systems. It is not possible to give a figure because the issue is a moving target.
Mr. Pickles: I asked a second question about rounding up or rounding down.
Mr. Rooker: I have not got a clue. If I receive some advice, I will pass it on to the hon. Gentleman, but at the moment I have no idea.
It could be argued that the payment of benefits weekly to the penny is ludicrous and antiquated. That is one reason why the pension credit will be a different benefit from the minimum income guarantee, which is calculated on a weekly basis. The consultation paper explains that the system will be simplified in that respect, so that it is not a weekly assessed benefit. It is a fair question, but I do not have the answer.
I am not about to make a Second Reading speech for the Social Security Fraud Bill, but it is worth putting a few points on the record. The Bill is narrow in scope and builds on reforms already made. It gives us new tough powers to tackle benefit fraud and delivers the key recommendations in Lord Grabiner's report, which was published almost a year ago.
We want to tackle the problem of persistent offenders. Some people think that we are fair game, but the new system of "two strikes and you're out" will act as a deterrent. No one can say that thousands of people will be affected—only hundreds will be—but the Bill will give the DSS and local authorities the power to catch persistent offenders. They will be able to check the bank accounts of those who are suspected of fraud.
The Bill contains four main provisions. I shall deal with them in summary form. The "two strikes and you're out" regime will act as a deterrent for the hard core of offenders. The Bill introduces new powers to reduce or to withdraw benefit for up to 13 weeks from people convicted twice of benefit fraud. That penalty will not affect those on whom sanctions have been imposed; it will affect only those who have been convicted by the court. Some benefits can be subjected to sanctions and some not, irrespective of which benefit was the subject of the fraud.
DSS and local authority staff will have the right to check information from public and private sector organisations, banks and utilities about suspected cheats. The caveat is that local authorities will not have the legal authority to check online unless they have specific permission from the Secretary of State. They will not have carte blanche rights. They will usually have to write to the banks, but they will not have on-line access without the approval of the Secretary of State.

313WH
We shall have rules to ensure that. We are not prepared to give 409 local authorities on line access willy-nilly. We do not have that much confidence.
Mr. Pickles: We may be few, but we are a merry band. The British Bankers Association is anxious that Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are sending only junior officers to banks. Has a decision been taken on what level of officer in the DSS and in the banks should deal with such inquiries?
Mr. Rooker: Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. Senior officers will be named. I cannot guarantee that; we have yet to make commitments in the other place. However, the Committee stage has finished and discussions are going on. We shall probably know within a fortnight. We shall have 13 area directorates, but only a small number of senior officers, working in tight teams, will have contact with the banks and financial institutions. Junior fraud investigators from local benefit agency offices, however well trained they are, will not have the wherewithal to go to the banks. I do not know what level of bank officer will be involved; we have not reached agreement on that yet. However, like us, those officials do not want people whom they do not know making inquiries about other cases, or other aspects of the same case. It is important that we have coordination.
I make two points clear about access to data. Under no circumstances will there be fishing expeditions. We have already agreed that one aspect of the Bill could be construed as fishing, but I have defended it on the basis of reasonable grounds—the kind of person involved, the nature of his or her employment, and whether fraud has already been committed. There was a reason for the approach, but it is too wide and could look like fishing. We need something specific to a person, using reasonable grounds, and subject to the caveats under the Bill. There will be no fishing expeditions.
A fairly tight, well-defined code of practice will be used. That will be published. I have given a commitment that it will be available in draft before Report in the House of Lords. As I speak, the draft is being discussed with industry.
Mr. Pickles: It is a narrow point, but I thought that what the right hon. Gentleman just said slightly contradicted what he said earlier about the type of employment concerned. To make matters clear, will he confirm that simply having been in a particular type of employment or having had a history of such employment would not be a reason for such action?
Mr. Rooker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what I said about the building industry. That was about an exercise to match existing Government information—tax records against social security records. That happens inside government. The Inland Revenue has its own powers, but the exercise in question has nothing to do with going to banks or credit agencies. It is an internal data-matching exercise on information held by public sector bodies. The provisions of the Bill that I have been discussing are
314WH
different. They entail approaching the private sector for information already in its possession, which might be useful in certain well-defined circumstances.
As to the point about ACT, I cannot remember whether clause 1 or 2 of the Bill introduces a more effective criminal offence of not declaring a change of circumstances. A clarification of the law is already needed with respect to ACT. The lawyers are always trying to make things more precise, so that they are judge-proof or slick-barrister-proof, if I can put it that way without denigrating the legal profession. We do not want to leave loopholes. The signing of an order book every week or month—that mere signature—is a declaration by benefit claimants that nothing in their circumstances has changed. With ACT, that does not happen. That gap is dealt with in the Bill.
Another key area is the targeting of employers who collude in benefit fraud by introducing the option of a swift civil penalty as an alternative to court. We do not necessarily want to prosecute; we want to get fraud out of the system. I am interested in the outcome. The process is important, but the outcome is what counts. If we achieve our aim by civil penalties and sanctions, so be it.
Other provisions in the Bill allow the DSS to exchange information with social security administrations in other countries. I imagine that we shall debate that at length. The arrangement will be made only with countries with the same type of judicial system and data protection as ours. The countries concerned will need legislation to protect the relevant data. At present, we have only a memorandum with the Irish Republic. It has not yet passed into legislation, but it will in due course. What is proposed will also improve the flow of information between the DSS and local authorities, particularly with respect to housing benefit.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked about the Data Protection Commissioner. We are in discussions with her to explain our position and to eliminate any misunderstandings that may have arisen. We are confident that the Bill does not contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Human Rights Act 1998. Ministers, with Parliament's approval, are in charge of policy. We expect our policy and its operational aspects to conform to rules under the Data Protection Act 1998, but it is our job to decide what the policy is. I make that absolutely clear. We are certain that any misunderstandings between ourselves and the Data Protection Commissioner can be settled by the time they reach the House. We hope that the Bill will help to reduce fraud by prevention and earlier detection, by use of powers to acquire data from the private sector and by deterrence through the powers to remove benefit from those persistent offenders. It is about rights and responsibilities; there is no doubt about that.
The Bill is necessary in the United Kingdom. People might wonder what happens in Europe. One reason why we need the Bill is that, unlike other countries in Europe, we have no identity system in this country. The Bill is part of the price that we pay for not having such a system. Some member states of the European Union have pretty rigid identity systems that track people throughout their lives, through their education, tax, work and social security. Hon. Members should not run

315WH
away with the idea that the national insurance number is an identity number; it is not. Therefore, we need those extra powers to restore public confidence in the social security system, deter the hard core of cheats and get at the organised fraudsters. I have not said anything about those in detail today, but we are undertaking big operations against organised fraudsters. People tell us lies and they do not tell us about changes in their circumstances. We need to have more information where we have doubts about the information that we are being given. We have a range of measures that reaffirms our determination to crack down on benefit fraud.
Our estimate of confirmed fraud is £2 billion, based on a proper statistical measurement of fraud. It is not a guess. I have explained how the £4 billion and the £7 billion were made up from past figures.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked about the breakdown of fraud and customer error and I have a few figures to share with him. The latest Government statistical survey report covering the period April 1999 to March 2000 gave figures for the most vulnerable benefits: income support fraud, 4.4 per cent., customer error, 1.2 per cent.; jobseeker's allowance fraud, 8.2 per cent., customer error, 0.7 per cent. One can see that it is overwhelmingly on the fraud side, which is one of the reasons why we take the matter so seriously.
3.22 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: This has been an interesting debate, almost like a Standing Committee in view of the Minister's courtesy. It is perhaps as well that this important issue is the subject of an Adjournment debate, as the Chamber is well and truly balanced at the moment and the Government's majority deeply threatened.
One cannot be unaware of the impending general election, when the right hon. Gentleman will retire. We will all be genuinely sorry to see him go. He has been a distinguished Member of the House. Some of my colleagues thought that this might be an appropriate occasion to pay tribute to him, but I do not believe that it is. I am confident that we shall be debating fraud on many more occasions. After all, this is the 49th announcement about fraud and I am certain that when the right hon. Gentleman delivers his golden address for the 50th announcement, we shall have something even more spectacular. We have had plenty of opportunities to debate the Scampion proposals. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is in his place and, to my certain knowledge, we have debated them at least three times in this Chamber. There seems to be almost a mathematical law that, as the number of prosecutions goes down, the number of announcements goes up—or perhaps it is the other way round.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the confirmed cost of frauds as £2 billion, but that is £5 billion less than the figure that others have given. I hope that that does not mean that he has given up the chase and is saying that we can measure only so much. The Public Accounts Committee has a larger sum in mind. When we last debated the issue, only a few months ago, the figure of £7 billion went unchallenged. That works out at about £300 a household. The Committee has talked about the much larger figure of £500 a household. As the right
316WH
hon. Gentleman said, we know that two out of five income support claims were once paid without sufficient evidence, but now that figure is one in six.
Not much was said about organised fraud, but the right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to organise various seminars on it in the past. It was quite something to see the ingenuity of some of the forged instruments, which would have fooled me. I cannot help but be struck by the irony of the fact that post offices go through an enormous rigmarole to check for a dodgy £5 or £10 note, yet are blase about handing over a giro for several hundred pounds. If the same scrutiny were given to giros as to dodgy fivers, we could eliminate a lot of fraud.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us a brief outline of the Bill that we hope to see in the dog days of this Parliament. I have a terrible suspicion that, if the Prime Minister in his wisdom decides to go to the public in April or May, we shall not have a proper Committee stage on the matter. Many problems must be dealt with. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it the wrong way, but listening to him and reading the Hansard reports of another place, there has been plenty of controversy about the question of access to people's banking or credit agency records, as though we could have a system with perfect matches.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been to various offices, as have I, and he is right to say that the IT facilities available are rubbish. I suspect that they were cutting edge when they were delivered. However, as we all know from our own shopping for IT, the moment that something becomes obsolete and rubbish is the moment that we undo the packing case.
Marrying information is important, but much of the information gathered by the Department is handwritten and stored in filing cabinets, especially in small local authorities. I have seen it stored in shoe boxes in one place. I do not know what happened when the boxes became full; perhaps they sent the staff out to buy some more plimsolls. We are a long way from matching all that information in a great data transfer. Better mainframe computers for the Department will not be the solution, because we are so reliant on the kind of information that is put in.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to mock local authorities for the nature of the questions asked. Some authorities do a marvellous job of cracking down on fraud. I was especially interested to read the recent report about the London borough of Wandsworth, which detailed great improvements there. Unfortunately for the British people, not all councils are as diligent as Wandsworth. Part of the problem is that local authorities have treated housing benefit forms as an opportunity to ask a couple of gratuitous questions so that they can check on various aspects, which would be good for the records. I suspect that in my time in a local authority I, too, was guilty of doing that, because it is a wonderful opportunity to get to know a little bit about the population that one serves.
However, organised criminals, and even an informal network of people who are less than honest, know which authorities have weak records and they will target them. Such authorities will feel the full effects of fraud because they are least likely to do something about it. It will take quite some time to deal with clapped-out equipment and bits of paper left hanging around. A single form would

317WH
be a great stride forward. Such a form would require only one type of training and would soon become familiar. An experienced housing benefit officer, when moving from one authority to another, takes along certain baggage and knowledge, which are not necessarily of any help in a new employment. A single form would help to build up expertise.
It would help if we could ensure that housing benefit staff met regularly to identify the latest frauds and discuss ways of ensuring that mistakes are kept to a minimum. I have little doubt that that would go some considerable way towards reducing housing benefit fraud, because dealing with housing benefit fraud, and I suspect with all fraud, is the practitioner's problem. It is a difficult nuts-and-bolts operation that means getting the right people into the right jobs and dealing with procedures that are clearly understandable.
Mr. Rooker: That was one of the recommendations of John Scampion's report. We are setting up regional boards so that we can have discussions with local authorities on a regional basis. That means that they can discuss certain elements with each other, on a regional basis, which was the key aspect identified by the hon. Gentleman. There is a real problem in getting practitioners to talk with each other. I hope that those regional boards will help to facilitate that.
Mr. Pickles: I find that reassuring.
This has been a good-tempered debate. There are differences between us in our general approach but not in the substance of the difficult matters with which we are dealing. I was struck by the lack of discussion on such matters among local authorities, and even between adjoining local authorities. I had an opportunity to visit one of my local authorities, Epping Forest, where the manager dealing with housing benefit fraud decided, off his own bat, to get volunteers to deliver benefit forms by hand instead of posting them, as a result of which an enormous saving was made, because, during the next few weeks, it was discovered that some people had perhaps forgotten to inform the local authority that their personal circumstances had changed. Such an initiative can make an enormous difference. I know that the adjoining authorities have not taken similar action. If there were regular meetings, the problems would be understood, and that would make a considerable difference.
We know the extent of the problem of social security fraud from the Public Accounts Committee. In response to a question of mine, the Minister produced some figures a few moments ago. I regret asking that question because I have the same figures, particularly with regard to the jobseeker's allowance where errors amounted to 2.8 per cent., resulting in an overpayment. Even that small proportion amounts to £21 million. We should be able to tighten up and ensure that people are properly assessed. The Minister was quite right to say that the overwhelming majority of people who apply for various benefits do so honestly and decently, and if they are overpaid will come to the counter and say so.
However, the system should not trap people. One of the most common problems dealt with in my constituency surgery is that of changing circumstances.
318WH
People are suddenly tight for money. They do not tell the Benefits Agency, but they plan to do so next week. Another week slips by, the bills are still coming in, and still they do not tell the agency. In the third week, the shortage of money is no longer at the forefront of people's minds. They are more worried that a month has passed without them declaring that they are in trouble.
In my part of the world, dealing with the Benefits Agency problems involves getting people to the agency office and persuading them to accept that they have made a mistake and will have to make recompense, but that they can wipe the slate clean quickly. We need to find a way to make the effect of changing circumstances much clearer in people's minds. That could be done through some of the recommendations in the Social Security Fraud Bill.
We have many reservations with regard to the practicality of the provisions, and particularly with regard to the role of the Data Protection Commissioner. We are not as sanguine as the Minister on the question of how judge-proof the legislation is. Nor do we always assume that what the Government are doing is legal and above board. I hope that the Minister does not find that offensive, because, particularly with the human rights legislation, the ultimate decision will rest with a judge and not with the Chamber.
The Public Accounts Committee stated that the amount of fraud in income support and child benefit alone exceeded £1.7 billion a year. The Minister says that we should disregard those figures. They are practically the same as those that he gave us for total fraud. The Benefits Agency reported to the Public Accounts Committee, about a year ago, that there was only a limited prospect of improvement within the medium term. The report also mentioned the problem that the hon. Member for St. Ives legitimately and correctly raised, that of devising an over-complicated system. I refer particularly to paragraph 37 of the third report of the PAC, which states:
"A key cause of error and fraud in income support is the complexity of the regulations, and the Benefits Agency told us that without simplification, 10 per cent of payments would always be wrong. This is poor administration, which creates confusion and uncertainty for those most in need, extra costs, and high levels of debt, much of which is not collectable."
Any measure on fraud that the Government seek to introduce should come hand in glove with a simplification of the regulations, or should include powers to simplify them. That goes to the heart of the debate. The PAC states that more than 50 per cent, of child benefit fraud occurs on claims for children over 16 who are falsely described as being in full-time education. Losses on the encashment of order books and girocheques have risen to £1.9 million per year. The Committee was right to say that it was disturbed by the agency's admission that it expects the level to continue to rise during the next few years.
All of those things can be dealt with at practitioner level; they are practical problems that we need to overcome. The simpler a system is, the easier it will be to administer. I am not as sanguine as the hon. Member for St. Ives that automatic credit transfer will cut out much fraud; the fraudsters will simply move on to another system of fraud. We know how money can be moved around the world at the blink of an eye. Automatic credit transfer may result in years of delay between payment and identification.

319WH
We are pleased that the Minister is starting to implement Scampion's proposals, but he referred to fraud and the fact that national insurance numbers are not as secure as most people think. What are the Government doing to address that? At a seminar, the Minister made great play of the falsification of records and "The Day of the Jackal" fraud, which involves people going round graveyards looking for somebody who would have been roughly the same age as them who died in infancy and taking their identity. Lord Grabiner, who considered the informal economy recently, also raised that point. What are the Government doing to tighten up that regime, so that people cannot obtain someone else's birth certificate as the prime source of their identity? When the Minister winds up what I suspect will be a short debate, it would be interesting to know what is being done about that.
The official Opposition are minded to be as helpful to the Government as possible, especially with regard to the crackdown on fraud. We want greater attention to be paid to the simplification of regulations, which the Government have considerably complicated. We accept what the Minister says about civil action, but there is a case for magistrates to be able to try people who are evading their income tax responsibilities. The Inland Revenue traditionally takes on only the more serious cases. Magistrates courts should be able to deal with benefit fraud under a fast-track procedure. The Minister did not say much about the "two strikes and you're out" initiative to ensure that people who have abused the system and have two convictions cannot continue claiming benefit at a full rate without facing the consequences of attempting to defraud their fellow citizens, which we support.
We look forward to the golden 50th announcement of initiatives. We also look forward to the Government taking some action.
3.44 pm
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I appreciate that this is an important issue, and, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, we are grateful to have the opportunity fully to explore the Minister's opening remarks. No one is in favour of social security fraud. We are all against it and it is the role of Opposition Members to harry the Government to encourage them to do more, and to make the Minister feel uncomfortable at times on the understanding that our shared objective is to tackle such a serious problem.
As the Minister explained, we are talking about a potential cost to the taxpayer of £7 billion. To put the problem in proportion, that sum is more than the annual budget of some small Departments, and such a serious amount requires a serious response. I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that, simply because not many hon. Members are in the Chamber today, we cannot conclude that that is necessarily the result of an inverse relationship with the weight of paper in the form of press releases from the Department announcing new ways in which the Government are tackling the issue. Social security fraud is a high priority, and it must be dealt with.
I am sure that all hon. Members have an unblemished view of the matter, but my first connection with the issue was when one of my brothers—I come from a large
320WH
family—was working on social security fraud for the Department. He had always thought that fraud was undertaken by desperate people who took desperate measures at desperate times. However, it was a culture shock for him when he found that the majority of fraud was carried out by organised syndicated gangs of people who know how the system works and who are milking it, sometimes by sophisticated means.
The Minister rightly pointed out that the first efforts to deal with fraud were made by the previous Conservative Government after they had been in office for 16 years. It was only in 1995 that they began to measure the extent of it. The present Government must be congratulated on the measures that they have announced and rolled out, and the House must debate what has been achieved as a result of their initiatives. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said that paragraph 37 of the Public Accounts Committee report refers to the fact that the total amount of fraud is unacceptable, but that much of it is the result of complex regulations. The Government have referred in the past to designing fraud out of the system, which was what the Minister was referring to when he spoke about the necessary changes to ACT. It is also important to simplify the system. The Minister must accept that some of the measures introduced by the Government add to its complexity. I have expressed my concerns about ACT, and we must watch that matter closely.
Another issue is the introduction of the working families tax credit. Originally, child benefit was the only method of supporting families effectively, but we now have working families tax credit and the children's tax credit. The more complexity is introduced into the system, the more opportunities are offered to people— who we must accept are often talented and able—to interface with those levels of complexity and find methods of defrauding the system. The Minister must identify and address those.
The Public Accounts Committee also identified the inadequacies of the Benefits Agency's computer system. The Minister, in his characteristically open way, described his concerns about the computer system in the past. As the Government introduce their proposals for ACT, there will be concern about whether they will address the weaknesses of the computer system. The Public Accounts Committee report states:
"we are sceptical about the timing and success of these essential improvements in the Agency's support systems."
Questions must be asked about what progress the Government have made since that report was published. The report was debated in this Chamber in February 2000, and many announcements have been made, but what progress has been made so far? Some of the targets are ambitious—a 25 per cent, reduction in fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by March 2004, a 50 per cent, reduction by March 2006, and a 10 per cent, reduction by March 2002. More than 40 anti-fraud initiatives have been announced. The Minister referred to the verification framework, which a district in my constituency, Penwith, was one of the first to introduce. The first phase of that resulted in tremendous complexity, and many difficulties for landlords and tenants. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will tell us how the verification framework is progressing in other districts.

321WH
Broader questions need to be asked about data protection issues. As I understood it, the verification framework was, among other things, a way of ensuring that the interface between district councils and benefits agencies was not stymied by data protection. The Minister described it, interestingly, as computers kissing themselves—information being exchanged between departments to verify that claimants were who they said they were, and to receive confirmation from the Benefits Agency that claimants were on the benefits that they said they were on. We strongly support the proposal to reward councils financially for detecting and prosecuting fraudsters and to put in place measures for active prevention. The publicity offensive that the Minister mentioned will take matters forward.
I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members have often had constituents come to them to say that they believe that a neighbour or someone in their community is fraudulently claiming benefit. I always tell them to give me the details or to go direct to the Benefits Agency and give that information confidentially. It is important for them and for the country as a whole that such information is passed on. I urge the Government to do more to encourage people to give information when they are genuinely concerned that benefit is being fraudulently claimed.
We are pleased that the "do not redirect" scheme to which the Minister referred is netting some success, and we are glad that he considers that that is resulting in some benefit. It will be interesting to see how the greater powers for fraud inspectors under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 and the benefit fraud hotline develop.
The Minister described the importance of the Social Security Fraud Bill. Does he believe that the Bill is likely to make progress and be enacted before the general election is called? The DSS website refers to 59 press releases relating to the crackdown on fraud since January 2000, announcing a variety of measures. For all the press releases, what is being achieved? Are we on course to meet the targets by March 2002?
The latest figures reveal that the total overpayment of income support and jobseeker's allowance due to fraud and error from April 1999 to March 2000 was £1.32 billion or 8.4 per cent, of the benefit paid. The DSS press release at the time stated that that represented a statistically significant reduction, but closer inspection reveals that fraud and customer error in income support alone increased by 0.6 per cent, last year from 13 per cent.-that is, 499,000 people in 1998–99 —to 13.6 per cent or 513,000 people in 1999–2000. Statistically, that may not be a significant increase, but it is hardly progress by leaps and bounds towards the 10 per cent, reduction target for next year.
The recent Audit Commission report published in late January this year contains unwelcome evidence for the Minister. Housing benefit accounted for 92 per cent, of all detected fraud in 1999–2000. The average value of each detected fraud increased from £464 to £644. However, it states:
"There has been a significant decrease in the number of housing benefit frauds detected, from 204,000 cases in 1998/9 to 144,000 cases in 1999/2000",
322WH
which is a 30 per cent, reduction, but the cost of each case is going up. According to the Audit Commission report, 22 per cent, of councils have still not appointed inspectors, 23 per cent, have not adopted a "do not redirect" scheme, 29 per cent, do not operate a scheme that imposes penalties as an alternative to prosecution, and 56 per cent, have not introduced a verification framework.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked the Minister in November last year on how many occasions he had used his powers to require local authorities to take specific measures to tackle housing benefit fraud, the Minister replied that, to date, one such direction had been made to Northampton borough council in August 2000. Is the measure being used? In the light of his jaundiced view of the action taken by local authority does the Minister envisage using the measure again?
The Public Accounts Committee referred to problems with the computer system. In January 2000, the Benefits Agency paid 112,000 recipients their benefit twice, which cost £10.5 million. That was due to a failure in the new computer system that pays benefits directly to banks.
The Minister will, quite rightly, tell me that it is too early to measure success, but it would be helpful to have some encouragement about when in the coming months he believes that the kind of difficulties that I have identified will be dealt with. Local authorities should be encouraged to share best practice methods to reduce benefit fraud. The Minister has referred to the use of a carrot and stick approach. Doling out financial penalties to local authorities that are not acting effectively, and giving financial inducements to those that are, is to be recommended. As a result of anti-fraud initiatives, some local authorities are achieving savings in benefit expenditure of between 5 and 6 per cent. We should be working towards that level of saving in every local authority, and a nationwide scheme would work towards that goal. We would certainly like to see an immediate review of the best-performing local authorities to establish which methods work. Perhaps lessons have already been learned from the Balham case, to which the Minister referred earlier, that could be transmitted to other authorities.
In conclusion, this has been a welcome opportunity to debate a serious and important subject. The Minister and his Department have announced a number of initiatives, all of which are welcome. Liberal Democrats are not yet convinced that ACT is the best way to deal with benefit fraud, not least because of its impact on the post office network. Modernising the computer system and broadening the extent to which that system is able to connect information across the Department and between Departments is welcome.
On a personal note, although I appreciate the need for data protection legislation to be strongly adhered to, and despite Liberal Democrats being strong on the issue of civil liberties, the Minister is right to identify the issue of ensuring a strong and robust method of interfacing information in order properly to combat fraud, and that needs to be pursued.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): I advise hon. Members that a Division is expected at 4.15 pm, so if we want to come back, we can.
4.5 pm
Mr. Rooker: That is helpful information, Mr. O'Brien. With the leave of the Chamber, I hope to do justice to the debate in the time available before the Division.
Data protection, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is taken seriously. There have been changes in data protection legislation, some of which have only recently become apparent to me—not in my ministerial role, but as they affect Members of Parliament in their case work. When one thinks about it, the idea that our constituents have access to our files is tricky. Changes are afoot that will home in on Members of Parliament: legislation that they have passed will personally affect them as holders of data on their constituents. I suspect some education is due on that matter. So that there is no misunderstanding, the Balham project is nothing to do with local authorities; it is located in the Balham DSS area and relates wholly to the issuing of national insurance numbers and a more intensive type of interview.
The Audit Commission report was mentioned by both the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George). The Audit Commission, as an auditor, operates with a different set of rules and legal authority from us. Its job is to fish, as it were, and it does; it data matches on computer in a big way, because the role of the auditor is different from that of the DSS. It data matches on a huge scale, crosschecking the hub of housing benefit, along with student loans, other benefits and urban renewal grants, which would not usually be paid to someone on housing benefit. Under legislation, it rightly has powers as an auditor to do a good deal of work and it is highly successful; its reports are most useful.
The hon. Member for St. Ives also asked about progress on the Social Security Fraud Bill. I cannot say; it will come out of the other place at some time. It is not generally known that the Government have only 29 per cent, of the vote in the House of Lords, so we have to negotiate. The Bill will come out of the other House when the combined forces of darkness, as it were—the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—decide to let us have it. I mention that as an aside, because there is a good deal of consensus on the Bill; I do not want to cause a problem as we finish. We have bent over backwards to ensure that we can robustly defend what is in the Bill at the Dispatch Box and in the court of public opinion outside, with the emphasis on the code of practice and the fact that there will be no fishing expeditions. We will try to get the Bill through the legislative system as soon as possible.
Mr. Pickles: I am willing to accept that the principal problem in the other place relates to data protection, and both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have framed constructive suggestions to overcome that. There is no question of the Bill being held back.
Mr. Rooker: Yes. On Report, the Government and others will table brief amendments to the Bill to meet some of those genuine concerns. I make no bones about that; there will be consensus and agreement in the other place. I should not say so, but I will, because it is part of my style, but had we known that the Bill would start in
324WH
the other place, it would have contained three or four other items, which we dismissed a while ago and took out. The Bill was a lot longer, but we said, "No, we're not doing that, that, that or that. We don't want a big debate; we don't want to go down that route." We could have left material in the Bill, we could have given the House of Lords a clause, but there was nothing left to give. Some narrow issues have rightly been raised and we are honing the legislation, which will be ready on Report.
I assure hon. Members that allegations that reach the Department, locally or nationally, are checked. However, Ministers cannot report back to a third party. We have set up the fraud hotline—0800 854 440—which is used frequently, and, from time to time, we publish parliamentary answers on its use. Allegations are checked, but people who make allegations may not always understand why they cannot have a report back about the result. That situation is unfortunate, but necessary.
Data matching through the Audit Commission is done on a large scale, and we also do some fishing ourselves. Order books with signatures go into store, and, as hon. Members know, some of them end up in Northern Ireland. Checks sometimes turn up orders that were lost between the printer and the customer or beneficiary. We find the orders cashed with a signature and post office stamp, and if, after checking, we discover something, people are prosecuted.
There are several activities dealing with organised crime to which I have not referred in detail. There are big operations for which high-tech surveillance is used, and although our own staff are not exactly put at risk, they are up against gangs of organised criminals. The matter is taken seriously.
"The Day of the Jackal" scam is a bone of contention, as it should be. The misuse of birth certificates to create a false identity has become a problem. It is stated on the certificate that the certificate is not proof of identity, and that has always been the case, but people ignore that, and continue to issue driving licences, bank accounts and other documents on the basis of such a certificate. However, the DSS does not rely on birth certificates for paying benefits or issuing national insurance numbers. We have our own investigatory powers and a system for checking individuals. Needless to say, problems with people who create false identities continue to occur. Sometimes that is done by using a dead person's identity and sometimes that of a living person. Criminals sometimes piggyback on the back of an existing individual, which is upsetting to the individual concerned.
We have begun to establish a computer base in the Office for National Statistics, which links infant births and deaths. That database will be available to the Passport Agency and the Department to combat fraud. It will go back only a few years, because we have to get it up and running, but it will provide a snapshot of births and deaths since a certain date. With the help of our colleagues in the Treasury, work is under way. People do not usually know that the Treasury is responsible for issuing birth certificates, but the Office for National Statistics is part of that Department.

325WH
Complexity of regulations has been an issue. Complexity of forms is one thing, complexity of regulations is another, but the main point is that people who claim benefit fraudulently and tell lies generally know that they are doing something wrong. They cannot say, "I didn't understand the rules." Most people do not understand them. They simply want to sign and date the forms and receive their benefit. They do not need to know the mechanics of the rules; they merely need to tell us the truth. If they do that, there is no problem.
326WH
A change of circumstances need not present difficulties, as people can phone, write, or visit offices. I should draw hon. Members' attention to a press release, which I have in draft form. It states
"Social Security Secretary Alistair Darling today welcomed a report by the National Audit Office which for the first time acknowledged the significant progress being made to tackle benefit fraud."
That press release is dated 8 February 2001. I rest my case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Four o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Factortame Ruling
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in meeting the claims arising from the ruling over the Factortame case brought by owners of flag of convenience vessels. [150068]

  Mr. Morley
  Settlement has now been reached with all the applicants involved in the Factortame litigation. Under the terms of the settlement the total sum of damages paid is £55 million, including interest of some £26 million. This includes the earlier settlement of £10 million reached in 2000 but excludes the legal costs of the applicants, liability for which was accepted as part of the settlement agreements, but which have yet to be assessed. The claims submitted by the applicants totalled £285 million before interest.

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government will publish its formal response to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group report. [149833]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to announce that copies of the formal Government response have today been placed in the House of Commons Library. A copy of the Government response is being sent to all those who responded to the report.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list (1) his Department's spending on official publications for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 and the planned expenditure for 2001–02; [141447]

  (2) if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997 and the total cost to the Department of each publication. [141464]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: A list of publications and printing costs, produced by my Department for the financial years since 1996–97, is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 24 May on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Brown. [143934]
  624W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: A reply was originally sent to the right hon. Member on 16 June 2000, but, I understand, was not received. A re-drafted response was sent on 7 February 2001.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his holding answer (UIN 135790), when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 13 July 2000 on behalf of his constituent Mr. Russell. [149210]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: A reply was originally sent to the right hon. Member on 22 August 2000, but, I understand, was not received. A re-drafted response was sent on 7 February 2001.

  Sugar
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of land is used to grow sugar beet in each EU member state, together with the percentage of that area that would be eligible for IACS payments if alternative crops were grown. [146411]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Sugar beet is grown on about 1.5 per cent. of the EU agricultural area, and the breakdown by member state is as follows. So long as this land met the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1251/1999 (effectively meaning that it had been used for sugar beet or other arable production at some time during the five years to 31 December 1991), it would generally all be eligible for payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme if eligible crops such as cereals and oilseeds were grown on it

  Thousand ha

  Member state

  Beet area 2000–01

  Austria

  43

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  95

  Denmark

  58

  Finland

  33

  France

  361

  Germany

  452

  Greece

  50

  Ireland

  33

  Italy

  240

  Netherlands

  112

  Portugal

  8

  Spain

  130

  Sweden

  56

  UK

  150

  Total EU 15

  1,821

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how much sugar by weight and value was exported from each Association of Caribbean Producers nation covered by the Sugar Protocol to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union; [146413]

  (2) if he will state the latest intervention price for (a) beet sugar under the EU sugar regime, (b) cane sugar imported from the Association of Caribbean Producers countries under the EU sugar regime, (c) world prices for beet sugar and (d) world prices for cane sugar. [146412]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The relevant information is set out in the tables.
  625W

  Table 1: Exports to UK and EU (October 1999 to September 2000)

  UK imports(thousand tonnes white sugar equivalent)

  Value(£ million)

  Other EU Imports(thousand tones white sugar equivalent)

  Value(£ million)

  Barbados

  48

  16

  0

  0

  Belize

  50

  15

  12

  4

  Guyana

  174

  59

  36

  12

  Jamaica

  133

  44

  33

  11

  St. Kitts

  16

  5

  0

  0

  Trinidad and Tobago

  43

  12

  9

  3

  Total

  464

  151

  90

  30

  Note:

  UK imports based on EU and C&E data (provisional). Other EU imports data from European Commission, with value derived using statutory minimum prices.

  Table 2: Prices

  euro/tonne

  £/tonne

  White sugar intervention price (UK)

  646.5

  414.21

  Raw sugar intervention price

  523.7

  335.53

  Sugar Protocol guaranteed price (white)

  646.5

  414.21

  Sugar Protocol guaranteed price (raw)

  523.7

  335.53

  Special Preferential Sugar price (raw)

  496.8

  318.30

  World price1 (white)

  263.7

  168.95

  World price1 (raw)

  264.2

  169.27

  1 World prices based on London spot prices for 18 January 2001

  Note:

  Exchange rate: euro/£=0.6407

  Mr. Hugh Leman
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 141W, what representations (a) his Department and (b) other statutory bodies have received from Mr. Hugh Leman. [147974]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: Pursuant to my answer of 16 January 2001, Official Report, column 141W, I am not aware of any representations from Mr. Hugh Leman.

  Pollution
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations. [148867]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has received representations from the NFU and other trade organisations, as well as ministerial correspondence, on the implementation of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations in the pig and poultry sectors. These have covered a range of issues specific to the pig and poultry sectors and also the Environment Agency's interim charging scheme. As part of the Action Plan for Farming, the Government dealt with two issues of particular importance to the industry: we deferred implementation of IPPC for existing pig and poultry installations until 2007 and have agreed an Environment Agency charge for permits based on General Binding Rules of £2,950, rather than the £12,000£18,000 it originally proposed. The Environment Agency, along with officials from MAFF, is continuing to work with the industry to ensure the rules implementing the IPPC 626W
  Regulations are as unbureaucratic and non-burdensome as possible while meeting the environmental requirements of the Regulations.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the relationship between the countryside stewardship scheme and rural development funds from(a) a national and (b) a European source; and if he will make a statement. [148949]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is allocated through the seven-year England Rural Development Programme. Some £480 million of the total programme budget of £1.6 billion is assigned to Countryside Stewardship. Of this, £295 million is nationally funded. £185 million derives from European funds, of which 27 per cent. is sourced from the Community's allocation for rural development and 73 per cent. from modulating farmers direct aids.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report from the Independent Review of Dispensing of Prescription Only Medicines for veterinary use; and if he will make a statement. [148155]

  Ms Quin
  The Independent Review of Dispensing, which is being led by Professor Sir John Marsh CBE, is due to report to my right hon. Friend the Minister by 31 March 2001.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Comitology
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many comitology committees of the EU were in existence on the most recent date for which figures are available. [147319]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Commission's latest list was printed in the Official Journal of the European Communities last year (C225 Volume 43, 8 August 2000). This is available in the Library of the House.

  IRA (Sweden)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Swedish Government to ensure that IRA fund-raising activities do not take place in Sweden through IRA-linked business operations; and if he will make a statement. [149118]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government are aware of recent Swedish newspaper allegations concerning IRA fund-raising in Sweden, but has no evidence to support them. Any allegations of fund-raising for the purposes of terrorism are examined carefully, and if necessary the UK authorities take action in co-operation with their counterparts in other countries.

  Departmental Policies (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect on the Moreeambe and Lunesdale constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [149126]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hold no information of the kind sought by my hon. Friend. The mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to promote the national interests of the United Kingdom and to contribute to a strong world community. For details of the Government's achievements in meeting their foreign policy targets, the following page of the FCO website may be helpful:http//www/fco.gov.uk/directory/dynpage.asp?page=108

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Retail Petrol Industry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy towards the independent retail petrol industry. [147047]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are committed to ensuring that a free and open market operates within the UK petrol retail sector to the benefit of consumers, not least those who use small independent retailers.

  Alternative Energy Sources
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons he intends to exclude energy from waste from renewables obligations; what measures he intends to introduce to promote energy from waste; and what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits of energy from waste. [149325]

  Mr. Hain
  No final decisions have been made as to which renewables will be included within the renewables obligation.

  The Government's consultation document on the obligation proposed that large-scale hydro and energy from waste should be excluded on the grounds that they are already commercially viable, well established in the market, and able to compete with electricity from fossil fuels. This view took into account the indirect support provided to energy from waste by the landfill tax. The many responses received to this and other proposals in the consultation document are under consideration.

  DTI does not have a promotional campaign on energy from waste. We do, however, support research and development on energy from waste and other forms of renewable energy under the Department's new and renewable energy programme.

  The Government's policy is first to minimise waste, then to maximise re-use, recycling and composting where this is the most appropriate action. However, where the creation of waste is unavoidable, burning it to generate energy saves fossil fuels, reduces emissions, contributes towards our Kyoto targets and avoids having to landfill such waste.
  628W
  The Government set out their aims and objectives for waste management in "Waste Strategy 2000". The choice of waste facilities is a matter for local councils to take in consultation with local communities, and councils should consider the best practical environmental option for each waste stream. The Government recognise that the recovery of energy from waste, through using it as fuel, may have a role to play, alongside recycling and composting, in a system of sustainable waste management.

  An assessment of the environmental and other advantages and disadvantages of various household waste management options including energy from waste is included in the publication "An Introduction to Household Waste Management" published in March 1998 which was sponsored by my Department. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the process of removing redundant offshore wind platforms. [149483]

  Mr. Hain
  A report was produced last year under DTI's new and renewable energy programme by Metoc plc, "An assessment of the environmental effects of offshore wind farms", which included wind farm decommissioning. Copies of the report are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his most recent estimate is of the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity generated from(a) offshore wind and (b) onshore wind, using a standard 6 per cent. discount rate. [149482]

  Mr. Hain
  The cost of generation from offshore and onshore wind will vary considerably depending on the location of the project. Costs can also be expected to fall over time as experience with the technology grows, and as economies of scale in plant manufacture and project development are exploited.

  Cost estimates were published by DTI in the March 1999 document "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century—Supporting Analysis". These showed that by year 2010, and with an 8 per cent. discount rate, the bulk of the UK's onshore wind potential could be developed at costs ranging from 2½–3½p per kilowatt hour. With a 15 per cent. discount rate, the cost range rises to 3½–5p per kilowatt hour. The cost ranges for offshore wind were very similar, although the potential resource is much greater.

  Commercial developers of wind projects can be expected to seek returns in excess of 6 per cent., with the scale of required returns depending on the technical and commercial risks associated with the projects. At present, these risks are greater for offshore wind whose development is at a very early stage and the prices required by generators for the first generation of offshore wind projects in the UK could well be in excess of the cost ranges quoted.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of garages sell low sulphur fuel(a) nationally, (b) in the North West and (c) in Wales. [149565]
  629W
  Mr. Hain
  Ultra-low sulphur diesel is available at virtually every petrol retail outlet in the UK.

  Regarding ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP), according to HM Customs and Excise's "Hydrocarbons Oils Bulletin", in mid-January 2001 (latest available data), ULSP constituted around half of petrol released for consumption in the UK. The equivalent figure for November 2000 was around one third. HM Customs and Excise collects data on a company by company, rather than a regional, basis. There are no separate figures for the North West of England or Wales.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many outlets sell ultra-low sulphur petrol in(a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) the Highlands; and how many outlets have begun to sell ultra-low sulphur petrol since 8 November 2000. [149336]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: According to HM Customs and Excise's "Hydrocarbons Oils Bulletin", in mid-January 2001 (latest available data), ULSP constituted around half of petrol released for consumption in the UK. The equivalent figure for November 2000 was around one third. HM Customs and Excise collects data on a company by company, rather than a regional, basis. There are no separate figures for Scotland or the Highlands.

  Energy Research and Development
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the report 'The Future of Research and Development in the Gas Industry' by Professor Gordon Mackennon and Steve Thomas; and if he will make a statement. [149303]

  Mr. Hain
  My officials are studying the report and are meeting the Institution of Gas Engineers next week (12 February) to discuss its content.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation his Department has made of the appropriateness to the UK of the US levy model for funding future research and development in the gas industry. [149304]

  Mr. Hain
  None, but I thank my hon. Friend for bringing it to my attention. The gas industry is firmly in the private sector and investment in R&D is a matter for industry participants. However, safety is a key concern of Government. The Health and Safety Executive, who are responsible for the regulatory regime for the safe conveyance and use of gas are, with DETR, considering the introduction of levy raising powers to ensure that appropriate funding is secured for safety related research. This follows the completion of HSE's Fundamental Review of Gas Safety.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what timetable has been agreed for progressing the review of research and development in the energy industry announced in the latest UK Energy report. [149302]

  Mr. Hain
  As indicated in the Energy Report, the DTI has recently undertaken a review of both business and public energy-related R&D funding. The outcome of this review will be a revised strategy for the funding of future energy-related R&D activities. It is expected that a draft will be circulated for consultation during February,630W
  leading to an updated strategy being included in the overall DTI Science and Innovation Strategy, to be published spring 2001.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place a copy of the Small Business Service targets in the Library. [146505]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 11 July 2000,Official Report, columns 475–76W.

  Post Offices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices there were in the Vale of York on (i) 1 February 1997, (ii) 1 February 1998, (iii) 1 February 1999, (iv) 1 February 2000 and (v) 1 February 2001. [149187]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the historic data requested are not available, and that the most recent data available for Vale of York constituency are as set out in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 22W.

  Ministerial Visits
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ministerial visits to non-European countries involved in the Barcelona Process have been made by Ministers from his Department since 1997; in which years; and to which countries. [147693]

  Mr. Byers
  Since 2 May 1997, DTI Ministers have undertaken ministerial visits to non-European countries involved in the Barcelona Process as follows:

  Country

  Visits

  Morocco

  1

  Algeria

  —

  Tunisia

  1

  Egypt

  2

  Israel

  2

  Palestinian Authority

  1

  Jordan

  —

  Lebanon

  —

  Syria

  —

  Turkey

  1

  Cyprus

  —

  Malta

  —

  Coal Industry Pension Schemes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to alter the rules on the treatment of surpluses in the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme. [148492]

  Mr. Hain
  I will carefully consider the present arrangements in the light of the results of detailed actuarial studies which are to be undertaken this year into the coal schemes' assets and liabilities.

DEFENCE

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the period of formal consultation with Stakeholders will begin for the Defence Diversification Agency. [149834]

  Dr. Moonie
  A Consultative Document outlining the options considered for the future of the Defence Diversification Agency and the proposed way forward is now available. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses and are being sent to key stakeholders. Additional copies are available on request from:

  Deputy Director Equipment Secretariat

  Room 2332

  MOD Main Building

  London SW1A 2HB.

  An electronic version of the Consultative Document will also be made available through the MOD website. The period of consultation will end on 23 March 2001.

  Tank Fleets
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the fleet size is of(a) Warrior variants, (b) Challenger 1, (c) Challenger 2, (d) Saxon variants, (f) AVF 430 variants, (g) Sabre, (h) Striker, (i) Scimitar, (j) Spartan, (k) Sultan, (l) Samaritan and (m) Samson; how many were (i) allocated to front-line units, (ii) fully operational, (iii) unserviceable-fully operational in 24 hours, (iv) unserviceable-fully operational in seven days and (v) unserviceable-fully operational in more than seven days on 12 December; what percentage of the fleet size this represents for each category; and if he will make a statement; [143192]

  (2) what the percentage serviceability target is in 2000–01 for equipment being required to be available within 24 hours for (a) RAF aircraft, (b) army tanks and (c) other battle vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [143194]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 January 2001]: I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Joint Service Defence Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason JS DCI 88/00 was cancelled; who authorised its cancellation; what replaced it; and if he will make a statement. [147245]

  Mr. Spellar
  In October 2000 I authorised the temporary withdrawal of Joint Service Defence Council Instruction 88/00, dealing with the Ministry of Defence's policy towards membership of societies such as Freemasons, while we conducted a review which is currently under way.

  Self-mutilation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths caused by self-inflicted wounds there were among serving armed forces personnel, broken down by(a) theatre of operations in which each occurred, (b) gender, (c) age and (d) ethnic group in each year from 1996. [149355]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2000 there have been 138 self-inflicted deaths among serving members in the armed forces. The tables provide details of these deaths by theatre of operation and age. To ensure that individual service personnel confidentiality is not compromised it has been necessary to group together certain categories in these tables. Of the 138 self-inflicted deaths only three were female. In respect of the breakdown by ethnic groups there have been: 118 deaths in the "white" category; nine deaths recorded in an "unspecified" category, and one Gurkha death. There were an additional 10 deaths for which ethnic origin is not available.

  Location

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Self inflicted deaths by theatre of operations:

  UK Great Britain

  20

  25

  13

  24

  26

  Northern Ireland

  12

  4

  5

  2

  7

  Germany (BAOR)

  Other Europe

  Cyprus

  Other Far East

  Army and RAF

  Other Overseas

  Total

  32

  29

  18

  26

  33

  (b) Self inflicted deaths by age:

  Under 25

  13

  11

  4

  10

  12

  25 to 34

  13

  10

  9

  10

  14

  35 and over

  6

  8

  5

  6

  7

  Total

  32

  29

  18

  26

  33

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 66W, if he will break down by age those who died of self-inflicted injuries, indicating in each case their length of service. [149211]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  BAE Bids
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will complete his evaluation of the bids by BAE for the construction of Type45 destroyers. [148672]

  Mr. Hoon
  The prime contract with BAE Systems Electronics for the Demonstration and First of Class (DFM) phase of the Type 45 programme (covering the design and build of the first three ships) was placed on 20 December 2000. The procurement strategy remains as I announced it on 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 701.
  633W
  Our evaluation of the unsolicited proposal from BAE Systems Marine for an alternative procurement strategy for this Programme is progressing separately and will include consultation with other interested Government Departments. We will reach a decision on this as soon as possible.

  Malaria
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies and regiments of the Army and Royal Marines which have been deployed to Sierra Leone since 1 May 2000, indicating in each case(a) the number of personnel in each company and regiment, (b) the date and duration of deployment, (c) where the company and regiment were deployed in Sierra Leone, (d) how many members of each company and regiment were administered with anti-malarial treatment before deployment, (e) how long before deployment treatment was administered and (f) how many members of each company and regiment were routinely screened for malaria on return; and if he will make a statement. [149177]

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

  Planning
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the projects promoted by his Department subject to the 18/84 planning procedure. [149352]

  Dr. Moonie
  My Department has put forward a large number of planning proposals under the 18/84 procedure in the years since it came into force, ranging from major developments to relatively minor works. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Globemaster Aircraft
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department is of leasing the four C-17 Globemaster aircraft from the US; and what estimate he has made of the cost of purchasing the aircraft. [149595]

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Short Money
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the President of the Council what evidence has been(a) sought from and (b) produced by the Conservative party and its auditors to show that the Short money which they have received has been used exclusively for its prescribed purpose. [147801]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Parties in receipt of Short money have to provide an independent auditor's certificate to show that it has been incurred exclusively in relation to the Party's parliamentary business. I understand the Conservative party has submitted such a certificate.

  Explanatory Notes (Legislation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Council when the explanatory notes for the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the Disqualifications Act 2000, and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will be available in the Vote Office; and if she will ensure that the explanatory notes will be available with future Acts at the same time that those Acts are published. [144132]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: All Departments have been reminded of the importance of ensuring that the Explanatory Notes to Acts are produced at the appropriate time. Because of the need to ensure that these accurately reflect the Act as passed it may, however, not always be possible to ensure that this is simultaneous with the Act. In the case of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, many amendments were made during its final stages and as a consequence it has taken time to ensure that the Explanatory Notes accurately reflect the changes which were made. These will be published shortly. The Explanatory Notes for the Disqualification Act 2000 were published on 29 January 2001, while those for the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 were published on 5 February.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Property Services (Ministers and Civil Servants)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those Ministers in his Department who(a) have interests in the letting of property and (b) use the letting and relocation company Cendant to let their properties or purchase other properties; and how many civil servants in his Ministry have used the services of Cendant (i) to relocate and (ii) to be housed. [146280]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Under the terms of the Ministerial Code, Ministers are required to order their affairs so that no conflict arises or is thought to arise between their private interests and their public duties. Information about the personal interests of a Minister is a matter between him or her and the Department in which he or she works, as is the use of any letting company in relation to any such interests.

  The Department has a contract with Cendant as one of its two relocation companies. Sixteen civil servants have used its services to relocate. None have used them to be housed.

  Accidents (M5)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the accident rate is on(a) all motorways and (b) between Strensham and Michael Wood service stations on the M5, broken down per mile of motorway, for the last five years for which figures are available. [147590]
  635W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: Based on the most recent information available, the injury-accident rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres on all motorways in England for the period 1995 to 1999 is as follows:

  1995—10.6

  1996—10.8

  1997—11.4

  1998—11.2

  1999—10.8

  On the M5 motorway, between the Strensham and Michael Wood service areas, the injury-accident rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres for the period 1995 to 1999 is as follows:

  1995—9.1

  1996—9.1

  1997—9.2

  1998—8.8

  1999—8.8

  Year

  2 Way AADT

  Section

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  Total

  Junction

  From

  To

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  A

  3

  1

  —

  1

  2

  7

  —

  start

  1

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  B

  3

  1

  7

  4

  5

  20

  —

  1

  2

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  C

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  2

  3

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  D

  1

  —

  3

  1

  4

  9

  —

  3

  4

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  E

  4

  2

  3

  2

  —

  11

  —

  4

  5

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  F

  3

  1

  1

  4

  2

  11

  —

  5

  6

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  G

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  6

  7

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  H

  3

  4

  1

  4

  2

  14

  —

  7

  8

  59,724

  58,081

  59,536

  55,251

  54,322

  I

  4

  8

  6

  4

  2

  24

  13

  8

  9

  65,290

  63,494

  44,197

  41,741

  40,940

  J

  2

  1

  2

  1

  6

  9

  10

  70,855

  68,906

  28,857

  28,230

  27,557

  K

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  7

  —

  10

  11

  70,855

  68,906

  28,857

  28,230

  27,557

  L

  2

  2

  3

  4

  —

  11

  12

  11

  12

  64,082

  62,319

  41,006

  40,227

  35,477

  M

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  —

  12

  13

  57,309

  55,732

  53,154

  52,223

  43,397

  N

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  12

  13

  57,309

  55,732

  53,154

  52,223

  43,397

  O

  1

  1

  3

  1

  2

  8

  —

  14

  15

  57,309

  55,732

  53,154

  52,223

  43,397

  P

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  —

  15

  16

  57,309

  55,732

  53,154

  52,223

  43,397

  Q

  2

  4

  —

  1

  1

  8

  —

  16

  17

  57,309

  55,732

  53,154

  52,223

  43,397

  R

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  6

  —

  17

  18

  57,309

  55,732

  53,154

  52,223

  43,397

  S

  1

  7

  4

  3

  3

  18

  11a

  18

  19

  59,405

  57,771

  54,437

  53,484

  48,248

  T

  2

  2

  1

  3

  3

  11

  —

  19

  20

  61,501

  59,809

  55,720

  54,704

  53,099

  U

  4

  6

  5

  3

  6

  26

  11

  20

  21

  65,255

  63,460

  59,946

  58,900

  53,110

  V

  2

  2

  4

  2

  1

  11

  —

  21

  22

  69,010

  67,111

  64,172

  63,095

  53,120

  W

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  —

  22

  23

  69,010

  67,111

  64,172

  63,095

  53,120

  X

  1

  3

  3

  1

  4

  12

  10

  23

  24

  72,355

  71,458

  68,401

  65,905

  59,612

  Y

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  5

  —

  24

  25

  75,700

  75,800

  72,630

  68,714

  66,104

  Z

  —

  1

  1

  3

  1

  6

  —

  25

  26

  75,700

  75,800

  72,630

  68,714

  66,104

  AA

  1

  1

  4

  5

  —

  11

  —

  26

  27

  75,700

  75,800

  72,630

  68,714

  66,104

  AB

  3

  3

  3

  —

  2

  11

  —

  27

  28

  75,700

  75,800

  72,630

  68,714

  66,104

  AC

  4

  3

  4

  3

  3

  17

  9

  25

  29

  70,600

  72,050

  68,915

  65,199

  62,722

  AD

  6

  1

  1

  —

  1

  9

  —

  29

  30

  65,500

  68,300

  65,200

  61,685

  59,341

  AE

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  30

  31

  65,500

  68,300

  65,200

  61,685

  59,341

  AF

  3

  4

  1

  3

  3

  14

  —

  31

  32

  65,500

  68,300

  65,200

  61,685

  59,341

  AG

  5

  3

  2

  3

  4

  17

  8

  32

  End

  73,350

  73,800

  71,000

  67,172

  64,620

  Grand Total

  72

  72

  68

  64

  63

  339

  Note:

  Rows highlighted in the original table are italicistd.
  636W
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to you separately providing the more detailed information you require.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Laurence Robertson, dated 8 February 2001:
  Following on from an answer to your recent question in the House of Commons (PQ147590) about accident data on all motorways and also concerning the section of the M5 between the Strensham and Michael Wood Service Areas I have been asked to forward more detailed information.
  I enclose a copy of a Spreadsheet that shows the detailed information you require for M5. The columns B to G record the number of accidents for each one mile section for the years 1995 to 1999. The columns Q, R, S, T and U also relate to the years 1999 to 1995 and show the accident rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres (shown on the spreadsheet as 'acc rates per 10^8 veh km'). Rows 1 to 32 represent the individual mile sections of the M5 between the two motorway service areas. The highlighted rows show where junctions occur and where you could reasonably expect more accidents.
  If you wish to discuss any aspect of the Spreadsheet and the information it contains I suggest that you contact John Smart in this office (telephone 0207 921 4818) who will be happy to assist with any queries you may have.
  637W

  2 Way AADT

  ACC rates per 10^8 veh km

  Acc rates per 10^8 veh km

  Average AADT 95–99

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  Average 99–95

  57,383

  8.6

  2.9

  0.0

  3.1

  6.3

  4.2

  57,383

  8.6

  2.9

  20.0

  12.3

  15.7

  11.9

  57,383

  2.9

  5.9

  0.0

  3.1

  0.0

  2.4

  57,383

  2.9

  0.0

  8.6

  3.1

  12.5

  5.4

  57,383

  11.4

  5.9

  8.6

  6.2

  0.0

  6.4

  57,383

  8.6

  2.9

  2.9

  12.3

  6.3

  6.6

  57,383

  2.9

  2.9

  0.0

  3.1

  3.1

  2.4

  57,383

  8.6

  11.7

  2.9

  12.3

  6.3

  8.3

  51,132

  10.4

  21.4

  23.1

  16.3

  8.3

  15.9

  44,881

  4.8

  2.5

  11.8

  6.0

  0.0

  5.0

  44,881

  2.4

  2.5

  5.9

  12.1

  12.4

  7.0

  48,622

  5.3

  5.5

  12.5

  16.9

  0.0

  8.0

  52,363

  0.0

  0.0

  3.2

  3.3

  7.8

  2.9

  52,363

  3.0

  6.1

  0.0

  3.3

  0.0

  2.5

  52,363

  3.0

  3.1

  9.6

  3.3

  7.8

  5.3

  52,363

  0.0

  0.0

  6.4

  0.0

  3.9

  2.1

  52,363

  5.9

  12.2

  0.0

  3.3

  3.9

  5.1

  52,363

  11.9

  0.0

  3.2

  0.0

  3.9

  3.8

  54,665

  2.9

  20.6

  12.5

  9.6

  10.6

  11.2

  56,967

  5.5

  5.7

  3.1

  9.3

  9.6

  6.6

  60,134

  10.4

  21.5

  14.2

  8.7

  19.2

  14.8

  63,302

  4.9

  5.1

  10.6

  5.4

  3.2

  5.8

  63,302

  4.9

  0.0

  0.0

  2.7

  6.4

  2.8

  67,546

  2.4

  7.1

  7.5

  2.6

  11.4

  6.2

  71,790

  2.2

  0.0

  2.3

  2.5

  5.2

  2.4

  71,790

  0.0

  2.2

  2.3

  7.4

  2.6

  2.9

  71,790

  2.2

  2.2

  9.4

  12.4

  0.0

  5.3

  71,790

  6.7

  6.7

  7.0

  0.0

  5.2

  5.1

  67,897

  9.6

  7.1

  9.9

  7.8

  8.1

  8.5

  64,005

  15.6

  2.5

  2.6

  0.0

  2.9

  4.7

  64,005

  2.6

  7.5

  0.0

  0.0

  2.9

  2.6

  64,005

  7.8

  10.0

  2.6

  8.3

  8.6

  7.5

  69,988

  11.6

  6.9

  4.8

  7.6

  10.5

  8.3

  8.8

  8.8

  9.2

  9.1

  9.1

  Note:

  Rows highlighted in the original table are italicised.

  Minister for the Environment (Financial Interests)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Minister for the Environment (1) has taken action in accordance with the terms of paragraphs 119 and 120 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct(a) to remove a risk of conflict between his financial interests and his ministerial position and (b) to avoid involvement in relevant decisions; [148046]

  (2) has submitted a minute to the permanent secretary at DETR concerning his financial interests, under the terms of paragraph 123 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct; [148045]

  (3) has consulted the Prime Minister concerning his financial interests under the terms of paragraphs 121 and 123 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct. [148047]
  638W
  Mr. Meacher
  I have ensured that there is no risk of a conflict between my ministerial position and conduct and my personal interests. Handling of these issues within Government falls within exemption 2 of part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  National Air Transport Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the contracts of senior management of National Air Transport Services which contain clauses relating to performance-related bonuses. [148136]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  It has always been Government policy not to interfere in the day to day running of the Civil Aviation Authority and its subsidiary, National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  639W
  There are over 100 senior managers in NATS whose contracts entitle them to participate in the company's performance-related bonus scheme. The company has the right to vary the terms of the scheme at its sole discretion and without notice. In common with many organisations in the public and private sectors, a significant part of the overall remuneration package of members of the Senior Management Group is provided in the form of a performance bonus scheme. The current scheme operates on the same basis as the Civil Aviation Authority scheme, with performance being assessed against a range of company-wide targets and individual targets. The targets are reviewed annually. For the current financial year there are four company-wide targets against which members of the Senior Management Group are assessed. These are as follows:

  1. a safety target, based on the number of risk-bearing Airproxes where NATS contributed to the cause;

  2. a delay target, based on the overall level of air traffic delays attributable to NATS;

  3. an efficiency target, based on the cost per flight of NATS operations; and

  4. a project performance target based on the progress of the Swanwick project.

  In addition, individual targets are set for senior managers which vary depending on the role of the individual within the company. There is also a small discretionary element available to reward outstanding performance unrelated to specific targets.

  Below the level of the Senior Management Group, there are a number of staff employed on personal contracts with the company. These staff are also entitled to participate in a performance bonus scheme. However, in line with practice in the Civil Aviation Authority, the NATS scheme for this group of staff is based on performance against individual targets agreed between the individual and his line managers. There is also a general, company-wide performance bonus scheme in which all NATS staff participate, except those in the Senior Management Group. This scheme was negotiated and accepted by the trade unions (principally the IPMS and PCS) as part of the annual pay negotiations.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average cost was of(a) water supply charges and (b) sewerage charges for English households in each decile income group; and what percentage of total household income within each decile these charges represent in each of the last five years. [148289]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The average charge for(a) water supply and (b) sewerage charges for all households in England and Wales since 1996–97 was as follows.

  £

  Year

  Water

  Sewerage

  2000–01

  102.73

  115.79

  1999–2000

  112.64

  134.45

  1998–99

  108.67

  128.59

  1997–98

  105.34

  122.40

  1996–97

  102.15

  118.37

  640W
  Information bearing on the subject of water and sewerage charges and their relation to household income is to be found in three published sources which are in the Library.

  First, the Office of Water Services publish the charges of each water and each sewerage undertaker and national averages in an annual series of reports, "Tariff Structure and Charges".

  Secondly, my Department commissioned and published a report by Maxwell Stamp, "Incidence Effects of Charging for Domestic Water and Sewerage Services", in July 1998. This includes tables modelling the gains and losses for households in each income decile of alternative water charging arrangements. Third, "Quality of Life Counts" included an indicator showing the percentage of households spending more than 3 per cent. of their net income on water for each of the past four years from 1994–95 to 1997–98.

  Both the Maxwell Stamp report and the "Quality of Life Counts" indicator used data from the DSS Family Resources Survey. The production of the information in the form requested will require fresh calculations, and I shall write to my hon. Friend when these are complete.

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many owners of vehicles found in(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster were prosecuted by the DVLA for (i) not registering their vehicle and (ii) not taxing their vehicle in 2000. [148618]

  Mr. Hill
  Vehicle excise duty and vehicle registration offences detected in the Barnsley and Doncaster areas are all prosecuted by the DVLA local office in Sheffield. It is not possible to split the number of cases into specific areas but during the period January to December 2000, 519 people were prosecuted by the Sheffield office for not registering their vehicle and 4,680 people were prosecuted for not taxing their vehicle. In addition, 492 people settled out of court for failing to register a vehicle and 10,452 for failing to relicense or make a statutory off-road notification.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the total number of properties owned by(a) registered social landlords and (b) each of the 20 largest registered social landlords. [148640]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Registered social landlords in England own an estimated 1,380,000 properties, comprising approximately 1,280,000 units of self-contained stock and approximately 100,000 bedspaces.

  The properties owned by the 20 largest registered social landlords are as follows:

  Name of RSL

  Total self-contained units owned

  Total bedspaces owned

  Total self-contained + bedspaces owned

  North British

  36,813

  1,986

  38,799

  Home

  26,411

  661

  27,072

  Anchor Trust

  23,496

  3,322

  26,818

  Sanctuary

  23,600

  1,528

  25,128

  641W

  Name of RSL

  Total self-contained units owned

  Total bedspaces owned

  Total self-contained + bedspaces owned

  Riverside

  20,478

  894

  21,372

  London and Quadrant HT

  19,036

  1,968

  21,004

  Guinness Trust

  18,051

  340

  18,391

  Peabody Trust

  16,358

  150

  16,508

  Northern Counties

  15,378

  845

  16,223

  William Sutton Trust

  15,651

  26

  15,677

  Orbit

  13,217

  592

  13,809

  Hyde

  11,398

  2,251

  13,649

  Housing 21

  12,519

  0

  12,519

  Wrekin Housing

  12,513

  0

  12,513

  Broomleigh

  11,891

  249

  12,140

  Metropolitan HT

  11,153

  931

  12,084

  Focus

  11,009

  966

  11,975

  Bradford and Northern

  11,465

  358

  11,823

  Samuel Lewis HT Ltd.

  11,080

  50

  11,130

  Notting Hill

  10,041

  641

  10,682

  Note:

  The figures are as at 31 March 2000 and derive from The Housing Corporation's Regulatory and Statistical return.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness with which registered(a) social landlords and (b) housing authorities manage resources. [148639]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  We want to see a step-change in social landlords' performance. Tenants deserve an effective and high quality service. The best value regime will drive continuous improvement in housing management. Its framework of performance indicators and targets will enable a direct comparison of performance between the registered social landlord and local housing authority sectors. The work of the Housing Inspectorate and the Housing Corporation's inspection regime will underpin the effective delivery of best value.

  Floods
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on reimbursing local authorities for the costs incurred as a result of the floods in November 2000; and if he will make a statement. [148646]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Between 13 October 2000 and 5 February 2001, a total of 106 local authorities had notified my Department that they had incurred expenditure for which they would consider making a claim under the Bellwin scheme in connection with the adverse weather events between October and December. Application forms have been sent to all these authorities but to date no formal claims have been received. Only 25 authorities have provided an estimate of incurred costs.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Environment Agency will publish its report on the flooding on 15 September in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [148973]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I understand that the Environment Agency will shortly have a draft report on the incident. The timing of its publication will depend on whether it considers any offence was committed under the Water Resources Act 1991. If the agency considers that no offence has been committed, it expects to be able to 642W
  publish shortly. If it considers an offence has been committed, publication will await the outcome of any subsequent action.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of the Bellwin scheme, with specific reference to arrangements for budgeting for(a) floods in November 2000 and (b) future floods. [148951]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On 4 November the Deputy Prime Minister announced several changes to the Bellwin scheme for this year in response to the very severe and widespread occurrence of bad weather in October and November. Among these changes, support above the threshold will be increased from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent, and valid claims will be settled within 15 working days of receipt. Arrangements for the future operation of the scheme will be considered in the forthcoming review of the Bellwin scheme by the Department and the Local Government Association.

  Duty of Care
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many commercial premises in(a) Lewisham and (b) London have been prosecuted in the last 12 months for not complying with the duty of care, as defined in section 34 of the Environment Protection Act 1990. [148722]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The number of commercial premises prosecuted by the Environment Agency under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the last 12 months is(a) nil in Lewisham and (b) four in London.

  Waste Regulation
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to improve the law in respect of the regulation of waste; [148720]

  (2) which bodies are responsible for ensuring compliance with sections 33 and 34 of the Environment Protection Act 1990; [148873]

  (3) what plans he has to take steps to ensure better compliance with sections 33 and 34 of the Environment Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement; [148724]

  (4) what arrangements are made by the Environment Agency for checking that commercial premises comply with section 34 of the Environment Protection Act 1990. [148727]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended) requires member states to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health or harming the environment; and to take the necessary measures to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste. The Government have put strict controls in place to comply with these requirements and are satisfied that they fulfil the UK's obligations under the directive.
  643W
  The Environment Agency is a "competent authority" for the purposes of the directive and is responsible for the enforcement of most waste management controls—including section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Action to ensure compliance is taken by the agency in line with its national enforcement policy—as published on its website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ epns/epp.htm.

  The duty of care imposed by section 34 of the 1990 Act is an essentially self-regulating system and no authority has a duty to enforce it—in relation to waste from commercial or other types of premises. However, the Environment Agency has a right of access to duty of care records under regulation 4 of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991. The following advice on enforcement action is provided in DOE Circular 19/91:
  "35. It is envisaged that [the Environment Agency] will pursue breaches of section 34 and seek access to holders' records when they suspect either that waste has not been transferred to an authorised person (or a person for authorised transport purposes) or an actual or potential breach of section 33."

  We have no plans to transfer waste regulation functions from the Environment Agency to local authorities or to prescribe local authorities as "competent authorities" under the framework directive. We will consider on its merits any case made to us, on a national basis, for an amendment to the 1991 regulations to allow local authorities a right of access to duty of care records as waste collection authorities or principal litter authorities.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the estimated percentage is of waste carriers who do not have bona fide waste transfer notes. [148725]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Environment Agency has no estimate of the percentage of waste carriers who may be failing to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many waste carriers in London have been prosecuted for failure to provide waste transfer notes in the last six years; [148726]

  (2) how many prosecutions brought by the Environment Agency in the past six years have involved authorised waste carriers (a) in Lewisham and (b) in London. [148729]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The records held by the Environment Agency do not separately identify waste carriers involved in prosecutions brought for contravention of waste management controls other than section 1 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 (offence of transporting controlled waste without registering).

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the percentage is of commercial premises in London which the Environment Agency estimates(a) do not have trade waste agreements under section 34 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 and (b) do not have adequate trade waste agreements. [148719]
  644W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Section 34 of the 1990 Act makes no provision for trade waste agreements. However, section 45 of the 1990 Act imposes a duty on waste collection authorities to arrange for the collection of commercial waste if requested to do so by the occupier of premises in its area. No information on these matters is held by the Environment Agency because the arrangements made under section 45 are a matter for each waste collection authority.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions brought by the Environment Agency for fly tipping in(a) Lewisham and (b) London resulted in waste licences being revoked. [148731]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The term "fly-tipping" is not legally defined but is generally used to refer to the illegal disposal of waste on a site without either a waste management licence or a registered licensing exemption. In such circumstances the Environment Agency may prosecute under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, but there is no licence in force for the land subject to fly-tipping, which the agency can revoke. The circumstances in which the agency may revoke a licence are set out in section 38 of the 1990 Act and section 41(6) of the Environment Act 1995.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements the Environment Agency has in place for checking that waste carriers are authorised in accordance with section 52 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. [148734]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The arrangements made for checking that waste carriers are properly authorised are set out in section 5 of the 1989 Act (duty to produce authority to transport controlled waste) and guidance on the use of these provisions by the Environment Agency is provided in DOE Circular 11–91 (paragraphs 1.82–1.89).

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vehicles have been seized and crushed as a result of being involved with fly tipping in the last six years in(a) Lewisham and (b) London. [148732]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Environment Agency may seize and dispose of vehicles under the terms of section 6 of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and the Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991. Since its establishment in April 1996, the agency has used these powers as follows:(a) One vehicle has been seized in Lewisham and was sold under regulation 23 of the 1991 Regulations; and
  (b) Six vehicles have been seized in London. Four of these vehicles were returned under regulation 22 of the 1991 Regulations; and one vehicle was crushed and one was sold under regulation 23 of the Regulations.

  Figures for the period before April 1996 are not held centrally by the Environment Agency.

  East Coast Mainline
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what rail
  645W
  inspection and repairs have been undertaken on the east coast mainline at the speed restricted stretch of line passing Bawtry, South Yorkshire. [149053]

  Mr. Hill
  2,112 yards were re-railed on the up-fast line at Bawtry on 15 December. Similarly 2,112 yards were re-railed on the down-fast line at Bawtry on 17 December. 'De-stressing' works, to enable the continuous rail to expand in summer and contract in winter, were completed on 28 January. The temporary speed restriction has now been lifted.

  City Challenge
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to improve the outcomes of and to learn from SRB and City Challenge-funded projects which have concluded or are near their conclusion. [149050]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The national evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget rounds 1 and 2, based on 20 case studies, is due to complete in 2003–04. The evaluation has strong reporting and dissemination requirements to ensure that lessons are fed into policy and practice in a quick and open manner.

  We fund the dissemination of good practice and the exchange of information to support SRB and other regeneration partnerships. In 2000–01, these included conferences, exhibition displays and seminars, and the production of complementary topic papers. We produce a quarterly colour newsletter, "Update", and make both local and electronic networking possible, the latter via Regen.net. At the regional level, the Regional Development Agencies undertake a range of activities for disseminating good practice to SRB partnerships. These include relaying key messages from scheme evaluations to partnerships at quarterly network meetings, employing dedicated best practice co-ordinators to develop networks and links between partnerships, and encouraging SRB schemes to transfer to community ownership during their lifetime.

  The City Challenge programme ended in 1998 and the final evaluation was published in 2000. It identified the achievements and good practice lessons that are transferable to other urban regeneration initiatives, including the need to involve the community, to spend time getting the right projects and project mix and the importance of the calibre and experience of key individuals on the executive team and board.

  Local Government Finance (Doncaster)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the value was of the Government's local government financial settlement for Doncaster borough for each year from 1978–79 to 2000–01; and what the percentage increase was on the previous year. [149068]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There have been three systems in operation during the period 1978–79 to 2001–02. These are not comparable, and the data prior to 1990–91 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The latest system, using Standard Spending Assessments to assess the Revenue Support Grant entitlements, was introduced in 1990–91. The data for 1990–91 to 2001–02 for Doncaster are given in the table. These data include only 646W
  the figures for Revenue Support Grant and not any additional ring-fenced grant also allocated at the time of the settlement.

  Year

  Revenue Support Grant (£ million)

  IncomefromNationalNondomesticRates (£ million)

  Total (£ million)

  Percentage increase on the previous year

  1990–91

  49.342

  63.957

  113.298

  —

  1991–92

  49.422

  76.396

  125.819

  11.1

  1992–93

  93.534

  75.321

  168.856

  34.2

  1993–941

  103.146

  62.466

  165.612

  -1.9

  1994–95

  118.287

  57.358

  175.645

  6.1

  1995–96

  116.225

  60.796

  177.021

  0.8

  1996–97

  119.459

  68.060

  187.519

  5.9

  1997–982

  117.121

  63.941

  181.062

  -3.4

  1998–992

  124.986

  66.425

  191.411

  5.7

  1999–2000

  131.060

  71.946

  203.006

  6.1

  2000–01

  129.066

  80.861

  209.927

  3.4

  2001–02

  137.215

  78.797

  216.012

  2.9

  1 Prior to 1993–94 the Revenue Support Grant and income from National Non-Domestic Rates were all paid to the billing authority; from 1993–94 onwards these grants are paid to both billing and precepting authorities. For Doncaster this means that the figures between 1992–93 and 1993–94 are not comparable.

  2 These years were subject to Amending Reports. The figures supplied are those relating to the Amending Report.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses to the local government finance Green Paper raised the issue of perverse incentives surrounding the fire service standard spending assessment. [148909]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A full analysis of the responses to the local government finance Green Paper is currently being finalised. It will be published on the DETR website by the beginning of March.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will respond to the recent Green Paper on local government finance. [148890]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We will announce our decisions on the reform of the local government finance system in a White Paper later this year.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what financial recognition is given to deprivation in the current Standard Spending Assessment formula, as applied to all local authorities in the west midlands region; [148888]

  (2) how deprivation is calculated in the methodolgy used in the Standard Spending Assessment formula. [148913]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) methodology is sub-divided into seven blocks. These are Education, Personal Social Services, Fire, Police, Highway Maintenance, Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS), and Capital Finance. The first six of these allocate the majority of the SSA on the basis of a 'client group'. For Education the client group is the number of pupils in a given age group; for EPCS it is the relevant population in each authority.
  647W
  In addition to the client group allocation, each of the six blocks includes a factor that reflects the higher cost of service provision in London and the South East. This is known as the Area Cost Adjustment.

  Lastly, each of the blocks includes factors that provide additional funding to those authorities that are assessed as having a higher need to spend. These additional factors can be loosely termed as 'deprivation' indicators. For example, the Education block includes indicators that show for each authority the proportion of children of lone parents, the proportion of children of Income Support/ income based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants, and an ethnicity indicator. The Education SSA methodology also makes an allowance for population sparsity to reflect higher costs in rural areas.

  Full details of all the indicators used in SSAs can be found in "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–021, a copy of which can be found in the Libraries of the House.

  Water (Investment)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to control the way in which the investment in plant and machinery is carried out by the various water companies and water authorities; and if he will make a statement. [149084]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  It is for the water and sewerage companies to invest as and when necessary to meet their obligations. Water and sewerage undertakers must carry out their statutory duties in accordance with the terms of their licences and must comply with quality standards set and enforced by the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The economic regulator, Ofwat, has the function of ensuring that undertakers are able to finance their duties.

  Severn Trent Water
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of water was lost by leakage by Severn Trent Water in each of the last five years. [148974]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Leakage is divided between water lost from the company's distribution system and water lost from customers' own supply pipes. Total leakage within the Severn Trent area and for these two components is as follows:

  Percentage

  Leakage from:

  Year

  Total leakage

  Company's distribution system

  Customers' supply pipes

  1995–96

  33.7

  25.0

  8.7

  1996–97

  25.5

  17.3

  8.2

  1997–98

  21.2

  14.9

  6.3

  1998–99

  18.3

  12.2

  6.1

  1999–2000

  18.1

  12.0

  6.1

  The percentage figures are calculated using 1999–2000 figure for water put into supply as a constant, to ensure
  648W
  that the figures are not distorted by other factors which would influence the percentage figure, such as increased demand from new customers.

  Sub-regions (South-West Region)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sub-regions of the south-west region and the criteria used to determine them; and what consultations were carried out before they were established. [149224]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The Secretary of State's proposed changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South West propose a spatial planning strategy based upon four broadly defined sub-regions, Northern, South Eastern, Central and Western. The proposed sub-regions reflect the different underlying economic realities, not political boundaries. The South West Regional Development Agency supports the sub-regional analysis in the Regional Planning Guidance as reflecting the RDA's own analysis on sub-regional economic zones. The concept of sub-regions was first identified in the draft prepared by the South West Regional Planning Conference in 1999, on which consultation was carried out in the autumn of 1999. The concept was discussed at the public examination held in March 2000 and developed in more detail in the panel's report. The Secretary of State's proposed changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance were published for public consultation on 20 December 2000. The consultation period ends on 14 March and all responses will be considered before the final guidance is published.

  Mineral Planning Guidance Note 11
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will re-open the consultative period on the proposed extended Mineral Planning Guidance Note 11, to allow environmental groups and other relevant interests who were not contacted as potential consultees to have their submissions considered; and if he will make a statement on the progress of his review. [149117]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consultation document was published on 8 May 2000, with comments requested by 31 July 2000. It was circulated to a wide range of interests and notified to the relevant planning and minerals press and the consultation document was accessible on the internet. There were also a number of articles in the national press that referred to the consultation on MPG 11. However, although the consultation period has formally ended, the Government will consider any submissions made to it in respect of this consultation document until such time as it goes to press for publication of the revised MPG 11. The consultation draft of MPG 11 received markedly different reactions from a number of parties. In the light of these my officials will be arranging to discuss the way forward with the major interests from the minerals industry, minerals planning authorities and the environmental sector in the next few weeks. We will then proceed towards finalising the MPG for publication.

  Meanwhile, we remain open to representations from any interested parties in respect of MPG 11. It can be found on the internet at www.planning.detr.gov.uk/consult.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale of 6 October 2000 to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, regarding a constituent, J. Hooson. [148626]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I replied on 19 January 2001.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149250]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The total number of press releases issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (central) and the former Departments of the Environment and Transport (excluding agencies) in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, and (d) 1999–2000, together with the total issued in 2000–01, is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of press releases

  DoT/DoE

  1996–97

  994

  DoT/DoE/DETR(c)

  1997–98

  855

  DETR(c)

  1998–99

  1,217

  DETR(c)

  1999–2000

  1,153

  DETR(c)

  12000–01

  569

  1 Ten months to 31 January

  The estimate for the total number of press releases for the current financial year, based on an extrapolation of releases already issued, is 680.

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will issue guidance on the rights of objectors to attend planning committee site visits in residential planning applications; [149055]

  (2) if he will issue guidance to make it easier for objectors to speak at local authority planning committee meetings. [149054]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no current plans to do so. The Government endorse the Local Government Association's good practice guide "Public Involvement in Development Control Process". This includes advice to local authorities on setting clear guidelines for public speaking and attendance at committee meetings.

  GLA Grant
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of general GLA grant he intends to set for 2001–02. [149747]
  650W
  Mr. Hill
  General GLA grant is determined annually after consultation with the Mayor of London under section 100 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The Secretary of State has today determined the level of grant for 2001–02 at £23.4 million.

HEALTH

  Best Value
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish his proposals for implementing a system of best value in the NHS. [145730]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]: The NHS Plan commits us to introducing a best value regime which will require each NHS organisation to review at least one major service, including clinical services, each year. Further announcements will be made in due course.

  Adoption
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the formal procedures are for adopting children from abroad; and if he will publish them; [147386]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the international laws governing the adoption of children; and if he will list them. [147415]

  Mr. Hutton
  Inter-country adoption is underpinned by a number of international agreements to which the United Kingdom is party. In particular, the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption aims to: Establish safeguards to ensure that inter-country adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights as recognised in international law.
  Establish a system of co-operation among those who have ratified the Hague convention to ensure that those safeguards are respected and thereby prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children.
  Secure recognition in countries who have ratified the convention of adoptions made in accordance with the convention.

  The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will be implemented in full later this year and, together with relevant Northern Ireland legislation, will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

  Other relevant agreements are:
  1986 United Nations Declaration on Social Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children;1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
  Where people habitually resident in England and Wales wish to adopt a child from overseas they should go through the same assessment and approval process as a prospective adopter of a child in the UK. Once completed, their papers are usually submitted to the Department, and if in order, the Department will issue a certificate of eligibility. The procedures that follow vary from country to country. They are contained within information sheets on various

  651W
  countries issued free of charge by the Department. The most popular ones can be found on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/ adoption.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are in national care waiting to be adopted; and how many are awaiting adoption in(a) Tyne and Wear and (b) South Tyneside. [148416]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of children in national care for whom adoption is the plan is not held centrally. However, the Department does hold figures on the number of children who have been placed with families who intend to adopt them.

  The estimated number of children who were being looked after by local authorities in England and who were reported as being placed for adoption at 31 March 2000 are as follows:

  Number

  England

  3,140

  Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County

  130

  South Tyneside Metropolitan District

  20

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  The table excludes children looked after under a series of short term placements.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many couples are on the(a) national, (b) Tyne and Wear and (c) South Tyneside child adoption register. [148417]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no central register of people approved to adopt but yet to be matched with a child. However, a 1999 survey by the Department's social services inspectorate revealed that at that time nationally 1,297 adopters had been recruited but had no children placed with them. We are currently collecting information on the approved adopters yet to be matched with a child in each local authority. In the future we expect this information to be held on the adoption register for England and Wales.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to improve the efficiency of the child adoption service. [148414]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 21 December 2000 we published the White Paper "Adoption: a new approach", together with draft national standards on adoption. Together they set out plans for a faster, fairer adoption service and the most radical overhaul of adoption legislation for 25 years. To make sure that these changes happen we have set a new target to increase the number of adoptions by 2004–05 by 40 per cent. (and if possible 50 per cent.), provided investment of £66.5 million over three years, set up the adoption and permanence task force, and are setting up an adoption register to match children with adoptive parents across the country.

  Orthodontists
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthodontists are employed by the(a) Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority and (b) NHS; and what the equivalent figure was (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 15 years ago. [148397]
  652W
  Mr. Hutton
  The number of General Dental Service dentists with more than 100 orthodontic claims in a year is shown in the table for the years 1999–2000, 1995–96 and 1992–93 for Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority and for England.

  General Dental Service: Number of orthodontists1

  Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority

  England

  1992–93

  0

  466

  1995–96

  2

  647

  1999–2000

  1

  825

  Notes:

  1. An orthodontist is defined here as a principal dentist who submitted a hundred or more orthodontic claims in a year.

  2. Some dentists may be included in both the General Dental Service and the Hospital and community health service figures.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve the National Orthodontal Service(a) within the NHS and (b) in the Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority. [148415]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are taking steps to ensure that dentists throughout the country can identify the appropriate cases for treatment, use the most clinically effective and cost-effective approach and maintain high standards of probity in providing orthodontic services. This will concentrate National Health Service resources more on the cases of true clinical need and less on minor cosmetic work.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for orthodontal treatment in the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority. [148418]

  Mr. Hutton
  Orthodontic services in the Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority area are provided by the Community Dental Service of the South Tyneside health care national health service trust. The waiting time for a first appointment is currently 11 weeks.

  Heart By-pass Surgery
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for NHS heart by-pass surgery in Tyneside. [148747]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on performance over the last six months, the average waiting time for an NHS coronary artery by-pass graft in Tyneside is 188 days. A new initiative to provide coronary artery by-pass grafts at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle, as well as the Freeman Hospital, commencing on 6 February 2001, will provide a further 25 coronary artery by-pass graft operations in this financial year. This will rise to over 200 additional operations in 2001–02 and then 400 additional operations from 2002–03 onwards.

  Elderly People (Free Personal Care)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce free personal care for the elderly in the rest of the United Kingdom in line with the proposal being put to the Scottish Parliament. [148609]
  653W
  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to what I said in the House on 5 February 2001,Official Report, columns 725–35.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when funding for beta interferon for newly diagnosed patients with multiple sclerosis ceased in all areas. [148664]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department issued guidance (in Executive Letter (95)97) to the National Health Service in 1995 about the prescribing of beta interferon. It recommends that health authorities should have in place arrangements for hospital specialists to initiate treatment in the light of medical evidence and local priorities. This guidance continues to apply until the National Institute for Clinical Excellence publishes its guidance on beta interferon later this year.

  Funding for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients has not ceased. General allocations to health authorities will rise on average by 8.9 per cent. for 2001–02.

  Elderly Patients (Medication)
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives regarding the prevention of abuse of older people in hospitals and care homes through the over-use of sedative and anti-psychotic medication. [148853]

  Mr. Hutton
  All prescribing for older people in hospital, residential and nursing home care should be undertaken and monitored carefully by the doctor who has clinical responsibility for that particular aspect of a patient's care.

  In 1998 the Department published a joint report with the National Prescribing Centre on general practitioner prescribing support. This document provides many examples of good practice, including advice and support on prescribing in residential and nursing homes. Age Concern also published a report in 1998 'Drugs and Dementia' which provides a guide to good practice in this area. In particular, it recommends regular reviews of prescriptions and that attempts should be made to reduce dosages of neuroleptics at least every six months.

  It is intended that national minimum standards will require care homes to have a policy, and staff to adhere to procedures, for the receipt, recording, storage, handling, administration and disposal of medicines.

  The Controls Assurance Initiative, launched in November 1999, sets out the organisational controls expected to be in place in hospitals across a range of areas. In March 2000, a revised controls assurance standard was issued on Safe and Secure Handling of Medicines (Medicines Management). This standard requires an auditable trail to be established for the supply, administration and disposal of medicines.

  The National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People will set national standards and define service models for older people's health and social care. The NSF will also emphasise the importance of this area of clinical practice.

  Waterhouse Report
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made to implement the recommendations of the Waterhouse report; and if he will make a statement. [148601]

  Mr. Hutton
  Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report "Lost in Care" was published on 15 February 2000 and made a total of 72 recommendations. Nine of these recommendations were primarily matters for the National Assembly for Wales to consider. Our response to "Lost in Care", published on 29 June 2000, set out the range of action being taken in respect of the remaining 63 recommendations applying directly to England. We accepted the spirit of all 63 recommendations that applied directly to England.

  The vast majority of the recommendations in "Lost in Care" were consistent with our objectives for children's social services. Many of the recommendations are being implemented through legislation including the Care Standards Act 2000, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and the Protection of Children Act 1999. The remainder are being addressed through major policy initiatives such as the Quality Protects programme, the review of social services complaints procedures and the development of new inter-agency guidance on the handling of complex abuse investigations.

  Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to reduce the number of adult victims of sexual abuse being admitted to mental hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [148594]

  Mr. Hutton
  Sexual abuse does not have a diagnostic classification of its own, but may be part of other diagnoses under the International Classification of Diseases and related health problems (ICD). Therefore, adults who have been victims of sexual abuse may be admitted to hospital with another condition, but we are not able to separate such cases from the data. We are well aware of the impact which sexual abuse during childhood may have on mental health in later life, a point which is elaborated in the National Service Framework for mental health. The NSF sets out how people should be able to get quicker access to more effective treatments in and through primary care, with support from specialised services where necessary.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a national network of organisations to support adult victims of sexual abuse; and if he will make a statement. [148602]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to establish a national network of organisations to support adult victims of sexual abuse. A variety of systems exist to ensure that there is scope for provision of a range of health and social care provision, including specialised services in the charitable and voluntary sector.

  We have set out clear national standards in the National Service Framework for mental health. It describes how people should be able to get quicker access to more effective treatments in and through primary care, with support from specialised services where necessary.
  655W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of treating adult victims of sexual abuse in mental health hospitals is for each health authority in the last year for which figures are available. [148593]

  Mr. Hutton
  Sexual abuse does not have a diagnostic classification of its own, but may be part of other diagnoses under the International Classification of Diseases and related health problems (ICD). Therefore, adults who have been victims of sexual abuse may be admitted to hospital with another condition, but we are not able to separate such cases from the data. However, we are well aware of the impact which sexual abuse during childhood may have on mental health in later life, a point which is elaborated in the National Service Framework for mental health.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adults have(a) disclosed that they have suffered sexual abuse and (b) are known to be suffering the effects of sexual abuse in each of the last 10 years. [148599]

  Mr. Hutton
  Central records are not kept of the number who disclose that they have been abused. However, we are aware that people who have suffered child sexual abuse are among those who are especially vulnerable. The National Service Framework for mental health reflects this.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he issues to GPs on the use of deputising services in respect of liability insurance for medical negligence; [149094]

  (2) in the last 10 years how many GPs found guilty of medical negligence have not held medical insurance; [149098]

  (3) what statutory provisions govern the employment by GPs of deputising services; [149095]

  (4) since which date GP deputising services have been required to ensure that the GPs they employ hold medical insurance; [149097]

  Ms Stuart
  The statutory provisions governing the employment by general practitioners of deputising services can be found in Schedule 2 of the General Medical Services (NHS) regulations 1992 (as amended). These require that a doctor shall take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the service provided by the deputising organisation is adequate and appropriate and that the doctors it supplies are suitably experienced and are not subject to disciplinary action.

  However, no specific guidance has been issued to GPs on the use of deputising services in respect of liability insurance for medical negligence or medical insurance. It would be considered good practice for all providers of services to the National Health Service to ensure that all doctors they employ have adequate indemnity.

  Information on the numbers of GPs found guilty of medical negligence who did not hold medical insurance is not held centrally.

  Following the independent review of GP out-of-hours services published in October 2000, all out-of-hours providers are to be required to meet new quality standards.
  656W
  Only organisations (such as co-ops and those providing deputising services) that demonstrate they can meet and maintain the quality standards will be accredited to provide out-of-hours services. One of the quality standards is for accredited organisations to hold indemnity cover.

  The legislation necessary to give health authorities the power to accredit out-of-hours organisations is currently being considered by parliament as part of the Health and Social Care Bill.

  Hospital Mortuary Facilities
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in respect of each hospital in the NHS(a) the number of beds in the hospital, (b) the number of permanent mortuary spaces available, (c) the number of temporary mortuary spaces available, (d) the proportion of temporary and permanent mortuary spaces which comply with (i) health and safety requirements, (ii) health service standards and (iii) designated staffing levels, (e) if its mortuary facilities are CPA accredited and (f) if it used non-refrigerated and non-compliant temporary facilities in the past two years. [149279]

  Mr. Denham
  I have placed information on the number of beds in each National Health Service hospital in England in the Library. Hospital mortuaries are accredited as part of National Health Service pathology services; it is not, therefore, possible to identify separately those hospital mortuaries which do not meet accreditation standards. Information is not held centrally on the number of permanent or temporary mortuary facilities, the standards they comply with, or the use of non-refrigerated or non-compliant temporary facilities.

  Deceased Patients
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish(a) the verbatim guidelines about how dignity and respect for deceased patients should be ensured, as issued by his Department in May 2000, and (b) the letter written by the NHS Chief Executive to all trusts on this subject on Monday 15 January. [149278]

  Mr. Denham
  The joint Health Service/Local Authority Circular "Winter 2000–01: Capacity Planning for Health and Social Care" (HSC 2000/016: LAC 2000–14) issued on 23 May 2000 stated:NHS organisations should work with local councils to ensure that all services involved in the disposal of bodies: medical certification, registration, coroners, funeral directors and burial or cremation services are in place and that adequate out-of-hours services are available.
  NHS trusts should ensure that mortuary capacity is adequate to meet peaks in winter deaths and take steps to provide additional facilities where this is likely to be required. Temporary mortuary facilities must meet minimum standards to respect patients' dignity. Refrigerated vehicles and trailers must not be used.

  Copies of HSC 2000/016: LAC 2000–14 are available in the Library.

  The letter written by the National Health Service chief executive to all trusts on this subject on Monday 15 January has been placed in the Library.

  Bedford Hospital
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 201, on Bedford Hospital, if he will place in the Library the parts of the final report as delivered to his Department which were left out of the version which is in the Library. [149277]

  Mr. Denham
  The investigation was carried out by civil servants from the Eastern Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive, which is part of the Department. The report was therefore written within the Department and copies of the final report have been placed in the Library.

  Non-residential Services
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the statutory guidance to be issued on charges for non-residential services. [149365]

  Mr. Hutton
  We plan to issue the statutory guidance on charges for home care and other non-residential social services in the spring.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) Great Britain and (b) each health authority area, the expenditure on health by weighted head of population, expressed in real terms, for each year since 1997 for which figures are available. [149436]

  Mr. Denham
  Expenditure on health per weighted head of population for England, and for each health authority area in England, from 1997–98 to 1999–2000, expressed in real terms, is shown in the tables. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Table 1: Health authority areas in England—Expenditure on health by weighted head of population expressed in real terms

  £

  Health authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon

  628.25

  672.11

  734.18

  Barking and Havering

  615.71

  629.88

  688.34

  Barnet

  662.90

  662.54

  754.50

  Barnsley

  554.70

  563.09

  667.48

  Bedfordshire

  588.29

  627.71

  684.27

  Berkshire

  602.56

  644.72

  705.53

  Bexley and Greenwich

  637.24

  671.78

  779.62

  Birmingham

  659.76

  680.35

  735.67

  Bradford

  617.48

  610.13

  711.26

  Brent and Harrow

  666.18

  706.54

  808.67

  Bromley

  585.54

  612.85

  779.25

  Buckinghamshire

  613.23

  641.72

  673.09

  Bury and Rochdale

  615.68

  606.15

  694.75

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  576.59

  587.33

  679.51

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  618.53

  671.24

  n/a

  Cambridgeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  690.15

  Camden and Islington

  660.51

  732.56

  820.03

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  612.24

  627.43

  737.93

  County Durham

  579.40

  598.55

  663.12

  Coventry

  585.12

  589.73

  664.57

  Croydon

  593.42

  642.30

  699.57

  Doncaster

  606.93

  609.76

  698.34

  Dorset

  599.24

  638.20

  730.63

  Dudley

  584.12

  614.52

  672.50

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  650.43

  665.43

  734.29

  East and North Hertfordshire

  650.03

  693.09

  695.36

  East Kent

  584.52

  626.59

  691.32

  East Lancashire

  615.45

  620.45

  707.35

  East London and The City

  632.23

  627.09

  775.69

  658W

  Table 1: Health authority areas in England—Expenditure on health by weighted head of population expressed in real terms

  £

  Health authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  East Norfolk

  629.44

  654.71

  n/a

  East Riding

  610.66

  626.47

  703.75

  East Surrey

  705.09

  757.55

  822.98

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  595.70

  612.28

  766.71

  Enfield and Haringey

  587.37

  616.10

  704.50

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  605.30

  602.89

  665.14

  Gloucestershire

  636.99

  648.55

  731.94

  Herefordshire

  676.36

  664.20

  810.80

  Hillingdon

  603.01

  638.21

  706.58

  Isle of Wight

  670.04

  696.84

  759.94

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  680.79

  694.96

  781.73

  Kingston and Richmond

  689.77

  726.65

  755.41

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  630.30

  657.10

  790.36

  Leeds

  640.82

  635.87

  742.03

  Leicestershire

  632.75

  636.14

  726.44

  Lincolnshire

  672.44

  646.32

  712.79

  Liverpool

  618.84

  629.55

  736.12

  Manchester

  649.62

  681.38

  773.81

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  649.78

  687.66

  824.05

  Morecambe Bay

  670.22

  689.93

  772.59

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  624.79

  653.43

  773.22

  Norfolk

  n/a

  n/a

  727.33

  North and East Devon

  640.54

  653.01

  711.52

  North and Mid Hampshire

  642.94

  674.81

  722.86

  North Cheshire

  615.75

  630.42

  708.50

  North Cumbria

  615.80

  643.41

  691.46

  North Derbyshire

  628.98

  654.02

  671.99

  North Essex

  614.13

  637.00

  727.57

  North Nottinghamshire

  595.14

  602.52

  702.30

  North Staffordshire

  596.62

  600.04

  675.34

  North West Anglia

  597.96

  619.18

  n/a

  North West Lancashire

  589.71

  591.78

  708.74

  North Yorkshire

  646.95

  691.99

  709.98

  Northamptonshire

  593.74

  624.51

  701.12

  Northumberland

  653.70

  666.35

  739.16

  Nottingham

  588.99

  681.71

  711.04

  Oxfordshire

  604.71

  629.19

  720.49

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  558.80

  621.27

  669.89

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  641.11

  687.54

  734.70

  Rotherham

  564.93

  578.53

  689.59

  Salford and Trafford

  598.73

  619.99

  727.00

  Sandwell

  615.45

  640.76

  697.32

  Sefton

  610.43

  628.57

  706.28

  Sheffield

  629.42

  634.38

  758.19

  Shropshire

  607.13

  625.92

  716.70

  Solihull

  669.36

  692.42

  687.80

  Somerset

  623.37

  651.44

  696.84

  South and West Devon

  609.64

  624.33

  713.39

  South Cheshire

  623.12

  662.60

  696.43

  South Derbyshire

  633.25

  637.44

  676.50

  South Essex

  582.43

  604.13

  661.43

  South Humber

  664.56

  701.25

  770.67

  South Lancashire

  634.53

  672.47

  735.17

  South Staffordshire

  612.95

  622.09

  687.05

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  622.67

  663.45

  725.27

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  596.20

  610.09

  658.59

  Stockport

  595.80

  616.09

  715.47

  Suffolk

  618.63

  656.58

  704.43

  Sunderland

  588.13

  581.22

  675.94

  Tees

  570.50

  597.88

  722.07

  Wakefield

  699.99

  703.51

  701.04

  Walsall

  587.47

  623.29

  713.64

  Warwickshire

  678.35

  679.59

  728.05

  West Hertfordshire

  649.63

  675.16

  712.99

  West Kent

  614.46

  645.07

  757.65

  West Pennine

  559.03

  568.58

  662.19

  West Surrey

  652.88

  686.74

  767.80

  West Sussex

  596.55

  642.22

  682.60

  Wigan and Bolton

  563.05

  577.53

  649.06

  Wiltshire

  642.19

  679.56

  762.38

  Wirral

  573.43

  628.90

  704.52

  Wolverhampton

  586.47

  606.79

  685.66

  Worcestershire

  677.17

  695.99

  718.87

  659W
  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 have been shown in real terms, with 1999–2000 as the baseline, using the GDP deflator.

  2. Expenditure is taken from Health Authority Annual Accounts or Summarisation Forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year. The expenditure is the total spent on the purchase of healthcare by the Health Authority. The majority of General Dental Services for all three years and an element of drugs expenditure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 is not included in the health authority accounts and is separately accounted for. All drugs expenditure is included in the 1999–2000 figures.

  3. Figures differ from those provided at Official Report, vol.352, columns 358–60W, as pharmaceutical services expenditure was excluded in the former answer to assist comparability. Comparability is not possible in this answer owing to the difference in reporting resulting from the formation of primary care groups. The GDP deflator and base years are also different between the answers.

  4. Where N/A appears in the table, this refers to the result of the mergers of Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia Health Authorities to give Cambridgeshire and Norfolk Health Authorities on 1 April 1999.

  Sources:

  Health Authority audited accounts for 1997–98 and 1998–99. Health Authority audited summarisation forms for 1999–2000. Weighted population estimates for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000. General Domestic Product (GDP) Deflator for 1997 to June 2000 calculated from Office for National Statistics data for GDP.

  Table 2: England—Expenditure on health by weighted head of population expressed in real terms

  £

  1997–98

  691.22

  1998–99

  707.89

  1999–2000

  757.22

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 have been shown in real terms, with 1999–2000 as the baseline, using the GDP deflator.

  2. Expenditure is taken from the health authority summarised accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year, and from the accounts of the Dental Practice Board for General Dental Services and the Prescription Pricing Authority for Pharmaceutical Services.

  3. Figures differ from those provided at Official Report, vol.352, columns 358–60W, owing to the use of the GDP deflator and different base years.

  Sources:

  Summarised account of the health authorities 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Weighted population estimates for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  General Domestic Product (GDP) Deflator for 1997 to June 2000 calculated from Office for National Statistics data for GDP.

  Northampton Community Healthcare and Rockingham Forest NHS Trust
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to lay an establishment order for the proposed merger of Northampton Community Healthcare and Rockingham Forest NHS Trust. [149475]

  Mr. Denham
  The establishment order for the new National Health Service Trust was made on 5 February and will come into force on 16 February.

  Marshall Case
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has held discussions with Nottinghamshire Social Services concerning their handling of the case of the Marshall daughters in Kirkby-in-Ashfield. [149225]
  660W
  Mr. Denham
  Officials from the Department have been in contact with senior officers from Nottinghamshire Social Services Department in relation to concerns that have been expressed about the welfare of the children involved.

  Nunnery Fields Hospital
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if contracts have been exchanged for the sale of the Nunnery Fields Hospital site. [149521]

  Ms Stuart
  Contracts for the sale of the Nunnery Fields Hospital site have not been exchanged.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and for how long his Department reviewed the research carried out by Professor John O'Leary at Coombe Women's Hospital in Dublin on autism and the MMR vaccine; and what the conclusions of the review were. [149344]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom health departments are advised on all matters concerning immunisation by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). The JCVI reviewed a paper entitled 'Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders', of which Professor O'Leary was a co-author, at its meeting of October 2000. The JCVI concluded that the paper did not provide any new evidence to alter its views on the safety of MMR vaccine.

  We are aware that Professor O'Leary also gave a presentation to the United States of America Congressional Oversight Committee on Autism and Immunisation in April 2000. The material presented to the Oversight Committee has, as far as we are aware, not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) MMR, (b) MR, (c) single antigen measles, (d) single antigen rubella and (e) single antigen mumps vaccines were administered in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979. [149364]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information available about measles, mumps and rubella, single antigen measles and single antigen rubella vaccinations given in England from 1979 to 1998–99 is contained in the table. Measles vaccine was given to children aged 12–15 months. Rubella vaccine was given to girls at about 10–14 years. Mumps vaccine has never been a part of the United Kingdom's routine immunisation programme and data on this were not collected.

  MMR vaccine was introduced into the routine UK childhood immunisation programme at age 12–15 months in 1988. MR (measles/rubella) vaccine was used only during the schools immunisation campaign of November 1994. In England, 6.6 million doses of MR vaccine were administered to children aged 5–16 years during that campaign.

  A second dose of MMR vaccine was introduced into the routine programme in 1996. Data for this vaccine, collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, show uptake of 477,000 (in

  661W
  1996–97), 933,000 (in 1997–98) and 455,000 (in 1998–99). These figures include doses administered both routinely and during a catch-up programme.

  Matters concerning Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are for the devolved Assemblies.

  Number of persons immunised in England

  Thousand

  Year

  MMR: first dose

  Single antigen measles

  Single antigen rubella: Schoolgirls immunized1

  1979

  2—

  332

  341

  1980

  2—

  352

  320

  1981

  2—

  369

  313

  1982

  2—

  391

  324

  1983

  2—

  393

  315

  1984

  2—

  436

  312

  1985

  2—

  474

  269

  1986

  2—

  503

  270

  1987–883

  2—

  647

  307

  1988–89

  670

  336

  229

  1989–90

  1,371

  25

  219

  1990–91

  1,060

  9

  199

  1991–92

  811

  2—

  221

  1992–93

  628

  2—

  204

  1993–94

  640

  2—

  181

  1994–95

  671

  2—

  2

  1995–96

  572

  2—

  2

  1996–97

  561

  2—

  2—

  1997–98

  553

  2—

  2—

  1998–99

  531

  2—

  2—

  1 The schoolgirl rubella immunisation programme was ended in October 1995.

  2 Not available

  3 Numbers immunised cover 15 month period from 1 January 1987–31 March 1988.

  Sources:

  Forms SBL 607, KC50, KC50A Department of Health, Statistics division SD2B

  Autism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the improvements and changes in the diagnosis of autism that occurred in each year since 1979; and by what means and when GPs and other health professionals were made aware of these changes. [149346]

  Mr. Hutton
  There have been considerable advances in the diagnosis of autism since 1979. This has been aided by the development of new diagnostic tools. These include the Diagnostic Interview for Social and Communication Disorders whose further development is being led by the National Autistic Society and the Autism Diagnostic Interview developed by Professor Ann Le Couteur. Dissemination is largely through professional publications, conferences and training days.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149243]

  Ms Stuart
  The number of press releases issued in each of the financial years requested is in the table.
  662W

  Financial year

  Total

  1996–97

  296

  1997–98

  330

  1998–99

  559

  1999–2000

  743

  In the current financial year 565 press releases have been issued to date. It is estimated the total for 2000–01 will be 715.

  Health Professionals (Training)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses have been in training in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [149350]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Numbers of hospital medical doctors in training in England as at 30 September

  All doctors in training1

  Registrar group

  Senior house officer

  House officer

  1990

  23,630

  9,710

  10,900

  3,020

  1991

  24,250

  9,900

  11,290

  3,060

  1992

  24,690

  10,080

  11,570

  3,040

  1993

  25,420

  10,370

  11,960

  3,090

  1994

  25,780

  10,750

  12,190

  3,020

  1995

  26,980

  10,820

  12,930

  3,220

  1996

  27,820

  10,840

  13,770

  3,220

  1997

  29,280

  11,360

  14.560

  3,360

  1998

  29,790

  11,590

  14,750

  3,450

  1999

  30,420

  12,100

  14,780

  3,540

  1 Doctors in training previously referred to as Junior doctors

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census>

  GP Registrars1, England as at 1 October for each year

  Headcount

  1989

  1,735

  1990

  1,562

  1991

  1,639

  1992

  1,613

  1993

  1,529

  1994

  1,445

  1995

  1,404

  1996

  1,305

  1997

  1,343

  1998

  1,446

  1999

  1,520

  1 Previously referred to as Trainees

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Nursing and midwifery student population

  Numbers

  Pre registration total1

  Degree total2

  Midwifery3,4

  Total

  1994–955

  38,840

  916

  —

  39,756

  1995–96

  35,609

  1,047

  —

  36,656

  1996–97

  35,238

  1,139

  —

  36,377

  1997–986

  34,087

  1,062

  3,263

  38,412

  663W

  Nursing and midwifery student population

  Numbers

  Pre registration total1

  Degree total2

  Midwifery3.4

  Total

  1998–997

  36,030

  1,314

  3,272

  40,616

  1999–20008

  38,990

  2,772

  3,464

  45,226

  1 All pre-registration non-degree training

  2 Pre 1998 data exclude degree training funded by DFEE

  3 Pre 1997–98 data do not separate nursing and midwifery figures

  4 Includes some post registration training

  Sources:

  51994–95 to 1996–97 source Minimum Data Set February 1995

  6March 1997 FWIR

  7April 2000 FWIR

  8November 2000 FWIR

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on mental health services as a proportion of total NHS spending in each year since 1988–89; and if he will make a statement. [149347]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 1 February 2001,Official Report, column 266W.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient contacts there were with district nurses in each year since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement. [149349]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about patient contacts with district nurses is contained in the statistical report "Patient care in the community, District Nursing summary information for 1999–2000, England". Copies of the summary are available in the Library.

  Stewart Committee
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the Stewart Committee on mobile phone safety; and what new studies he has asked the Committee to undertake. [149519]

  Police force

  Chief constable

  Assistant chief constable

  Superintendent

  Chief inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total police ranks

  Total strength for ordinary duty as at 31 March 19971

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  3

  29

  43

  144

  454

  2,315

  2,989

  Bedfordshire

  1

  2

  16

  12

  61

  156

  846

  1,094

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  15

  14

  62

  207

  1,001

  1,302

  Cheshire

  1

  3

  20

  30

  94

  308

  1,590

  2,046

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  13

  21

  78

  224

  1,121

  1,458

  Cumbria

  1

  2

  13

  16

  54

  176

  882

  1,144

  Derbyshire

  1

  3

  21

  24

  92

  274

  1,376

  1,791

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  3

  30

  45

  139

  413

  2,234

  2,865

  Dorset

  1

  2

  18

  24

  69

  201

  969

  1,284

  Durham

  1

  2

  20

  22

  75

  211

  1,130

  1,461

  Essex2

  1

  3

  31

  44

  143

  469

  2,269

  2,961

  Gloucestershire

  1

  2

  14

  19

  55

  170

  872

  1,133

  Greater Manchester

  1

  6

  79

  95

  378

  1,021

  5,342

  6,922

  Hampshire

  1

  3

  38

  45

  157

  509

  2,698

  3,452

  Hertfordshire2

  3

  19

  29

  94

  249

  1,365

  1,758

  Humberside

  1

  3

  19

  30

  111

  299

  1,582

  2,045

  Kent

  1

  4

  30

  43

  165

  463

  2,554

  3,260

  Lancashire

  1

  4

  27

  42

  178

  503

  2,492

  3,247

  Leicestershire

  1

  2

  18

  20

  95

  275

  1,556

  1,949

  Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  13

  21

  56

  183

  921

  1,196

  London, City of

  1

  2

  12

  15

  51

  122

  656

  859

  Merseyside

  1

  4

  51

  59

  187

  656

  3,272

  4,230

  Metropolitan Police2

  7

  28

  211

  344

  1,197

  4,218

  20,671

  26,677

  664W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart group) was set up to investigate the public health implications of mobile phone technologies. Their report was published on 11 May 2000 and the group stood down shortly thereafter. Copies of the report are available in the Library. The report included a recommendation for a substantial research programme to be set up. This programme, jointly funded by Government and industry, was announced in December 2000 and will be launched at a scientific workshop in central London on Friday 9 February. The research will be undertaken under the direction of an independent programme management committee under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart. The selection and management of studies will be in the hands of the programme management committee. Details of this new committee are available on the website "www.doh.gov.uk/mobilephones"

  Enrolled Nurses
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals which do not offer permanent posts to enrolled nurses. [148437]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally but may be held locally by individual National Health Service employers. We have made it clear that the systematic use of short-term contracts for nurses and other staff should end.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Numbers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, on a comparable basis, the number of police officers, broken down by rank, in each force in England and Wales, and for England and Wales as a whole, at(a) 31 March 1997 and (b) 30 September 2000, indicating the change in the number of officers at each rank in each force and in England and Wales as a whole over that period. [149209]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The information requested is in the table.
  665W

  Police force

  Chief constable

  Assistant chief constable

  Superintendent

  Chief inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total police ranks

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  17

  19

  64

  195

  1,133

  1,432

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  12

  9

  54

  168

  931

  1,177

  Northumbria

  0

  4

  39

  51

  181

  517

  2,885

  3,677

  North Yorkshire

  1

  2

  14

  22

  65

  216

  1,018

  1,338

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  3

  23

  20

  124

  331

  1,822

  2,323

  South Yorkshire

  1

  4

  40

  46

  159

  473

  2,436

  3,159

  Staffordshire

  1

  3

  26

  33

  120

  344

  1,684

  2,211

  Suffolk

  1

  2

  15

  12

  59

  169

  922

  1,180

  Surrey2

  1

  3

  21

  19

  91

  245

  1,240

  1,620

  Sussex

  1

  4

  28

  39

  162

  477

  2,374

  3,085

  Thames Valley

  1

  3

  54

  39

  198

  542

  2,858

  3,695

  Warwickshire

  1

  2

  11

  11

  52

  141

  708

  926

  West Mercia

  1

  3

  19

  31

  118

  305

  1,563

  2,040

  West Midlands

  1

  4

  76

  79

  342

  974

  5,636

  7,113

  West Yorkshire

  1

  4

  49

  68

  255

  726

  4,106

  5,209

  Wiltshire

  1

  2

  13

  15

  63

  179

  881

  1,154

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  2

  14

  17

  42

  173

  756

  1,005

  Gwent

  1

  2

  11

  15

  52

  198

  964

  1,243

  North Wales

  1

  2

  18

  26

  74

  224

  1,024

  1,369

  South Wales

  1

  3

  33

  51

  155

  473

  2,260

  2,976

  Total all forces3

  48

  145

  1,290

  1,679

  6,164

  18,811

  96,914

  125,051

  Total strength for ordinary duty as at 30 September 20001

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  3

  22

  36

  147

  438

  2,294

  2,941

  Bedfordshire

  1

  2

  13

  12

  54

  141

  783

  1,006

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  2

  14

  11

  59

  191

  989

  1,266

  Cheshire

  1

  3

  17

  26

  100

  332

  1,521

  2,000

  Cleveland

  1

  2

  24

  2

  67

  196

  1,129

  1,421

  Cumbria

  1

  2

  8

  14

  50

  156

  817

  1,048

  Derbyshire

  1

  3

  24

  26

  83

  281

  1,363

  1,780

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  4

  34

  35

  137

  400

  2,261

  2,873

  Dorset

  1

  2

  14

  22

  63

  198

  999

  1,299

  Durham

  1

  2

  19

  23

  81

  212

  1,244

  1,581

  Essex2

  1

  3

  22

  40

  130

  436

  2,147

  2,780

  Gloucestershire

  1

  2

  11

  16

  54

  171

  887

  1,142

  Greater Manchester

  1

  6

  77

  88

  319

  992

  5,285

  6,767

  Hampshire

  1

  3

  33

  39

  165

  530

  2,663

  3,435

  Hertfordshire2

  1

  3

  21

  30

  104

  272

  1,530

  1,961

  Humberside

  1

  2

  22

  24

  102

  268

  1,486

  1,905

  Kent

  1

  5

  25

  39

  146

  479

  2,544

  3,239

  Lancashire

  1

  3

  30

  35

  166

  516

  2,463

  3,215

  Leicestershire

  1

  3

  15

  21

  96

  260

  1,614

  2,010

  Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  10

  16

  59

  185

  888

  1,162

  London, City of

  1

  1

  8

  12

  48

  93

  557

  720

  Mersey side

  1

  4

  46

  53

  170

  604

  3,203

  4,081

  Metropolitan Police2

  5

  26

  192

  380

  1,166

  3,944

  18,981

  24,695

  Norfolk

  1

  2

  15

  23

  68

  216

  1,062

  1,387

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  11

  11

  51

  165

  925

  1,166

  Northumbria

  1

  5

  41

  58

  193

  550

  3,037

  3,885

  North Yorkshire

  1

  2

  11

  12

  66

  210

  991

  1,293

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  3

  20

  24

  115

  306

  1,762

  2,232

  South Yorkshire

  1

  4

  38

  51

  176

  494

  2,420

  3,184

  Staffordshire

  1

  2

  16

  24

  107

  335

  1,672

  2,157

  Suffolk

  1

  2

  13

  15

  54

  171

  860

  1,115

  Surrey2

  1

  3

  17

  21

  88

  310

  1,673

  2,113

  Sussex

  1

  5

  29

  35

  160

  464

  2,119

  2,812

  Thames Valley

  1

  2

  43

  34

  196

  567

  2,905

  3,748

  Warwickshire

  1

  2

  12

  9

  40

  120

  728

  912

  West Mercia

  1

  2

  16

  26

  92

  298

  1,471

  1,906

  West Midlands

  1

  4

  59

  34

  301

  1,019

  5,931

  7,350

  West Yorkshire

  1

  5

  46

  72

  232

  657

  3,793

  4,806

  Wiltshire

  1

  2

  14

  16

  56

  182

  829

  1,099

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  2

  15

  18

  46

  184

  779

  1,045

  Gwent

  1

  2

  11

  16

  57

  203

  981

  1,271

  North Wales

  1

  2

  13

  21

  60

  230

  1,066

  1,393

  South Wales

  1

  4

  31

  38

  169

  443

  2,343

  3,029

  Total all forces3

  47

  145

  1,172

  1,557

  5,892

  18,419

  94,997

  122,230

  Difference in number of officers between September 2000 and March 1997

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  0

  -7

  -7

  3

  -16

  -21

  -48

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  -3

  0

  -7

  -14

  -63

  -87

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  -1

  -3

  -4

  -16

  -12

  -36

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  -3

  -4

  6

  24

  -68

  -46

  Cleveland

  0

  1

  11

  -19

  -11

  -28

  8

  -38

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  -5

  -2

  -4

  -20

  -65

  -96

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  -9

  7

  -13

  -10

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  1

  4

  -10

  -2

  -13

  28

  8

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  -4

  -2

  -6

  -3

  30

  15

  666W 667W

  Police force

  Chief constable

  Assistant chief constable

  Superintendent

  Chief inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total police ranks

  Durham

  0

  0

  -1

  1

  6

  1

  114

  121

  Essex2

  0

  0

  -9

  -4

  -13

  -33

  -122

  -181

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  -3

  -3

  -1

  1

  15

  10

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  -2

  -7

  -60

  -29

  -57

  -154

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  -5

  -6

  8

  21

  -35

  -17

  Hertfordshire2

  0

  0

  2

  1

  10

  24

  166

  202

  Humberside

  0

  -1

  3

  -6

  -9

  -30

  -96

  -140

  Kent

  0

  1

  -5

  -4

  -19

  16

  -10

  -21

  Lancashire

  0

  -1

  3

  -7

  -12

  13

  -29

  -33

  Leicestershire

  0

  1

  -3

  1

  1

  3

  58

  61

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  -3

  -5

  3

  3

  -32

  -35

  London, City of

  0

  -1

  -4

  -3

  -3

  -29

  -99

  -138

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  -5

  -6

  -17

  -52

  -69

  -149

  Metropolitan Police2

  -2

  -2

  -19

  36

  -31

  -274

  -1,690

  -1,982

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  -2

  4

  4

  21

  -71

  -45

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  -1

  2

  -3

  -3

  -6

  -11

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  2

  7

  12

  33

  152

  208

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  -3

  -10

  1

  -6

  -27

  -45

  -Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  -3

  5

  -9

  -25

  -59

  -92

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  -2

  5

  17

  21

  -15

  26

  Staffordshire

  0

  -1

  -10

  -9

  -13

  -9

  -12

  -54

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  -2

  3

  -5

  2

  -62

  -65

  Surrey2

  0

  0

  -4

  2

  -2

  65

  433

  493

  Sussex

  0

  1

  1

  -4

  -2

  -13

  -256

  -273

  Thames Valley

  0

  -1

  -11

  -5

  -2

  24

  47

  53

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  -2

  -12

  -22

  20

  -14

  West Mercia

  0

  -1

  -3

  -5

  -26

  -7

  -92

  -134

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  -17

  -45

  41

  45

  295

  237

  West Yorkshire

  0

  1

  -3

  4

  -23

  -69

  -313

  -403

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  -7

  3

  -53

  -55

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  11

  24

  41

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  5

  17

  28

  North Wales

  0

  0

  -5

  -5

  -14

  6

  42

  24

  South Wales

  0

  1

  -2

  -13

  14

  -30

  83

  53

  Total all forces3

  -1

  0

  -118

  -121

  -272

  -392

  -1,917

  -2,821

  1 Full-time equivalents

  2 Prior to 1 April 2000 the Metropolitan police district included areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. After that date the responsibility for policing these areas transferred to the county forces. To compensate for the additional area police officer resources were transferred from the Metropolitan police to the surrounding forces, more information is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01.

  3 Totals do not include secondments

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the improvements he plans to make to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. [149217]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 539W.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average length of time taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to process compensation awards. [149218]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 13 November 2000,Official Report, columns 544–45W.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he first made public the Government's proposals for the change of policy on citizenship outlined in paragraph 10.7 of the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum"; and if he will make a statement. [147633]
  668W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The Government's formal proposals, as set out in paragraph 10.7 of the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" were first published in the White Paper on 27 July 1998.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidance notes in languages other than English to assist applicants to complete a statement of evidence form to support a claim for asylum. [149569]

  Mrs. Roche
  The explanatory notes which accompany the statement of evidence form are being revised and translated into over 60 languages. Non-governmental organisations have been consulted about the content of the revised document. The purpose of the explanatory notes is to help applicants complete the statement of evidence form and understand how their application will be processed. The explanatory notes also provide information on how to seek legal advice, access translation services and obtain medical assistance as required. The intention is to issue the first translated documents later this month.
  669W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of his review of the voucher scheme for asylum seekers. [149570]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 413W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement setting out the reasons for the difference between the number of asylum appeals(a) received by his Department and (b) referred by his Department to the Immigration Appellate Authority during 2000. [149571]

  Mrs. Roche
  The data recently published are provisional. The main reasons for the difference between the number of asylum appeals received in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the number referred to the Immigration Appellate Authority are:(a) increased work in progress on the appeals received within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as decision output has risen;
  (b) a number of cases in which a non-compliance decision was originally made but it has subsequently emerged that a statement of evidence form had been received in time. We have undertaken to reconsider these cases; and
  (c) because the current data on appeals lodged are taken from manual records and we believe that they overstate the actual number of appeals lodged. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is in the process of transition from manual to electronic records for appeals. The total number of appeals lodged is likely to be revised downwards once the reliability of new electronic data have been established.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will end the use of Winchester prison to house asylum seekers. [149520]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is the Government's intention that the current use of remand accommodation at Winchester prison should cease by the end of October 2001 when new dedicated immigration detention and holding centres become available.

  Alcohol-related Crime
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the measures on alcohol-related crime contained in the Criminal Justice and Policing Bill will apply to licensed bars in private sports clubs; and if he will make a statement on police powers of enforcement in such cases. [149586]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Non-profit-making private sports clubs are allowed to supply alcohol, to members and guests, if they have a magistrates court registration certificate. If a club chooses to obtain a full justices' on-licence, so that it can also sell alcohol to the general public, then Clause 19 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which gives the police powers to close down disorderly or excessively noisy licensed premises, will apply, but not otherwise.

  Departmental Policies (Staffordshire, Moorlands)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical 670W
  information relating as directly as possible to Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency, the effects on Staffordshire, Moorlands of his Department's policies and actions (a) since 2 May 1997 and (b) in the 12 months ending on 1 May 1997. [149194]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to the Staffordshire, Moorlands constituency or the immediate locality.

  Staffordshire police have provided the following information on the overall number of recorded crimes in the Staffordshire Moorlands East and West areas:

  Year ended 31 March 1997—6,460

  Year ended 30 September 2000—6,525.

  These figures are not, however, directly comparable as there was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which laid more emphasis on measurement of one crime per victim, and also expanded the coverage of offences. It has been estimated that the change in counting rules increased the number of recorded crimes counted nationally, over England and Wales as a whole, by 14 per cent.

  Under the Crime Reduction Programme there is a Staffordshire-wide project running under the Targeted Policing Initiative (TPI) dealing with prolific offenders. The amount awarded for this project is £529,000.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Staffordshire, Moorlands to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Pub Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pub exclusion orders were(a) applied for and (b) granted in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. [148957]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The power to make a pub exclusion order is contained in section 1 of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980. Where a person is convicted of an offence committed on licensed premises and the court is satisfied that in committing that offence the offender resorted to violence, or offered or
  671W
  threatened to resort to violence, the court may make an exclusion order, which prohibits the offender from entering those premises, or any other specified premises. Currently maintained statistics do not allow the identification of occasions where pub exclusion orders are made by the court.

  Police Recruitment (Asian Women)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage more women of Asian heritage to join the police. [148941]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is the responsibility of individual chief officers of police to recruit the right people to serve in their forces. It is important for the police service to reflect the communities which it serves, and to help them achieve this my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set all forces recruitment targets for minority ethnic officers. Useful advice to forces in relation to black and Asian women is contained in research recently published by the Home Office into attitudes of people from minority ethnic communities towards a career in the police service.

  Fires
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires in(a) houses, (b) sheltered accommodation and (c) residential care homes took hold in upholstery which had not been treated with fire retardants in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [148944]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is contained in the table. The information provided by fire brigades distinguishes between upholstery containing combustion modified foam, which would comply with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended, and upholstery containing other foams and fillings which do not. It is not possible to give a figure for the number of fires which may have started in upholstery treated with any form of proprietary flame retardant treatment. The information in the table relates to fires attended by local authority fire brigades in 1999 where upholstery furniture was the material first ignited.

  Fires1 in dwellings and residential care homes where material first ignited was upholstery furniture, United Kingdom, 1999

  Location

  Total upholstery fires

  Fires involving non-fire retardant upholstery2

  Dwellings3

  2,480

  2,472

  Of which:

  Sheltered accommodation

  65

  63

  Residential care homes4

  820

  818

  1 All figures are based on sample data, weighted to brigade totals. figures include late call, heat and smoke incidents.

  2 Refers to any upholstery which contains foams or other fillings which do not comply with Regulations.

  3 Dwellings include caravans, boats and other non building structures used solely as a permanent residence.

  4 Includes elderly persons homes, children's homes, homes for the disabled, charitable hostels, and other types of welfare and charitable establishments.

  Proxy and Postal Votes
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new form for proxy and postal votes will be published. [148945]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 do not prescribe a form to be used to apply for an absent vote, but regulation 51 sets out the information required in an application. We shall be circulating to Electoral Registration Officers in mid-February a suggested formulation of an application form for postal votes. The requirements for a proxy vote have not changed and so no new form is necessary.

  Animal Welfare
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department has taken to improve animal welfare since May 1997. [148958]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been a number of measures to improve animal welfare since May 1997.

  The use of animals in scientific procedures is strictly regulated by what is widely acknowledged to be the toughest legislation of its kind in the world. We are working to ensure that the highest possible standards of animal welfare are applied and that animals are used only where it is fully justified—where the benefits outweigh the costs and where there are no suitable alternatives. To this end we are promoting the fullest application of the 3Rs—the replacement of procedures with others which do not use animals, the reduction of the number of animals used, and the refinement of procedures to minimise pain and suffering.

  In addition to our commitment to the 3Rs, the other main individual measures this Government has introduced since the election to ensure that animals are used only where fully justified are as follows. We have:
  secured a voluntary ban on testing cosmetic finished products on animals;
  increased the budget made available to the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research on alternatives by 45 per cent. to £265,000 for 2000–01;
  banned the use of animals to test alcohol and tobacco products;
  increased the size of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate from 18 to 21, and recruited seven new inspectors to fill these and other vacancies;
  introduced a requirement that all establishments licensed under the 1986 Act have local ethical review processes as a complement to the existing controls under the Act;
  announced our intention never to allow the use of great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and orang-utans);
  announced the phasing out of the use of ascitic animals in certain forms of monoclonal antibody production; and
  ended the licensing of the LD50 test and of tests for skin corrosivity and phototoxic potential where valid alternatives exist.
  Other support given to animal welfare includes:

  673W
  backing a Private Member's Bill which became the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, a measure aimed at tightening regulation of commercial dog breeding establishments, and issue to local authorities of related detailed guidance;
  preparation, with the Association of Circus Proprietors, of a code of practice on the care and welfare of animals in travelling circuses;
  making an order that allows for an indefinite prohibition of the culling of seals on the east coast of England; and
  participating in the Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group which was established last year to ensure that the UK's overall animal welfare strategy is effectively co-ordinated.

  Crime Statistics
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded on 2 January. [149119]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Recorded crime details are not collected centrally on a daily basis. The latest available data on recorded crime are for the year ending September 2000. These showed that there were 5,221,416 recorded crimes in England and Wales in that year.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) vehicle crimes and (b) domestic burglaries there were in (a) April 1997 and (b) January 2001. [148977]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of recorded crime are no longer collected monthly. Comparisons of recorded crime figures between different dates are normally made using annual totals. The figures for the requested categories of crime, for the years ending March 1997 and September 2000, which is the most recent published data, are as follows:

  England and Wales—numbers of recorded crimes

  Burglaries

  Vehicle crimes1

  Domestic

  Year ending:

  March 1997

  1,245,052

  581,985

  September 20002

  1,000,317

  417,380

  1 Theft of and from vehicles

  2 Owing to the change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, direct comparisons cannot be made between data before and after this date. However, it has been estimated that the change in counting rules increased the number of thefts of and from vehicles counted by 1 per cent. and all burglaries by 0.1 per cent.

  The number of Parenting, Child Safety and Sex Offender Orders (as introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) made, discharged or breached within pilot areas and nationally up to 30 September 20001

  Made

  Number up to 31 May 2000

  Nationally from 1 June to 30 September 20001

  Discharged

  Breached (up to 30 June 2000)1

  Sex Offender Order2

  332

  11

  4,5—

  5—

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  1

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Parenting Order6

  5—

  740

  5—

  81

  Of which given at:

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many designations have been made to date under section 16(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and how many directions have been given under section 16(2) of that Act. [149165]

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

  Section 16 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides the statutory basis for truancy operations which are conducted in partnership by the police and local education authorities. Designations in accordance with section 16(1) and directions in accordance with section 16(2) are made for the period of the truancy operation only. There is no requirement on either the police or the local education authority to conduct these operations at specified intervals, or to report to Government Departments when they do so. We have, however, recommended that they jointly review the truancy problem in each local education authority area and conduct truancy operations each term as appropriate.

  Section 16 operations are an important tool in helping both to reduce truancy and the potential that young people will be drawn into crime or other anti-social behaviour when they should be at school.

  Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Sex Offender Orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been(a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement; [149162]

  (2) how many Child Safety Orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been (a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement; [149164]

  (3) how many Parenting Orders have been made to date in each police force area in England and Wales; how many have been (a) discharged and (b) breached; and if he will make a statement. [149163]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information, up to 30 September 2000, is given in the table.
  675W

  The number of Parenting, Child Safety and Sex Offender Orders (as introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) made, discharged or breached within pilot areas and nationally up to 30 September 20001

  Made

  Number up to 31 May 2000

  Nationally from 1 June to 30 September 20001

  Discharged

  Breached (up to 30 June 2000)1

  Civil and family proceedings courts

  —

  18

  5—

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Criminal courts

  —

  722

  8—

  —

  Durham

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Child Safety Order6

  5—

  10—

  5,9—

  10—

  Care Order for Non-compliance with

  Child Safety Orders

  5—

  10—

  5—

  10

  1Provisional

  2Implemented on 1 December 1998

  3Data by area for Sex Offender Orders only available from 1 June 2000

  4Subsection 2(7) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that 'except with the consent of both parties, no sex offender order shall be discharged before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of service of the order'

  5Not available

  6Piloted from 30 September 1998 and implemented nationally from 1 June 2000

  7Data for parenting orders given at criminal courts up to 30 June 2000 only

  8Breach recorded in Dyfed-Powys police force area in 1999

  9If the child fails to comply with any requirement, the court may, on application of the responsible officer, discharge the order and make in respect of him a care order under s31 (10(a)) of the Children Act 1989

  10Not applicable

  Committals
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will propose legislation to adopt into English law the Scots law rule of bringing an offender to trial within 110 days of committal to trial(a) for young offenders and (b) for all offenders; and if he will make a statement. [148943]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to reducing the time taken to bring defendants to trial, especially those under the age of 18. To this end we have introduced a number of reforms designed to reduce delay, the latest (which was implemented nationally on 15 January) being the new procedure for sending indictable-only cases to the Crown Court. These measures are reinforced both by custody time limits which restrict the time for which defendants may be held in custody pending trial, and by statutory time limits within which the prosecution must bring cases to trial, which are currently being piloted in selected youth courts. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced tighter criteria for granting extensions to these time limits, as well as making provision for limits in cases involving juveniles to cover the period from arrest to first listing.

PRIME MINISTER

  Speaker's Committee
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has appointed a Minister with responsibilities in relation to local government to the Speaker's Committee established under section 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. [149835]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with section 2(3) of the Act, I have appointed my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions as a member of the Speaker's Committee.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children and Family Court
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action she is taking locally to provide advice, training and guidance regarding the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service prior to its commencement. [149167]
  677W
  Jane Kennedy
  Last year we ran a series of regional conferences for staff and one specifically targeted at administrators, including a conference for east and east midland staff held in Peterborough in June 2000. We are currently running a similar programme of regional conferences for managers, and the conference for east and east midland managers was held in Peterborough in January of this year. At national level, we are developing new induction training for officers of the service and will provide further training for staff as CAFCASS comes into being.

WALES

  Planning Legislation (Tuckey Ruling)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with National Assembly Secretaries on the ruling of Lord Justice Tuckey on legislative provision on planning matters in Wales in relation to the requirements of European legislation and of the Human Rights Act 1998. [148320]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with Assembly Secretaries about a range of issues, including both planning law and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Wales.

  The judgment of the Divisional Court is now the subject of an appeal. The appeal will be heard in the House of Lords on 26 February. The National Assembly is being kept abreast of developments.

  Mr. Adrian McMenamin
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales from what date Mr. Adrian McMenamin has been employed in the Wales Office; what the terms of reference of his post are; and what his civil service grade is. [148869]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Mr. McMenamin has been employed by the Wales Office since December 1999. He is employed under the terms of the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Special advisers are not appointed to mainstream civil service grades.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149241]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In 1996–97, our predecessor Department, the Welsh Office, issued 650 press notices, 774 in 1997–98, and 776 in 1998–99. The Wales Office issued 54 in 1999–2000 and has issued 88 this financial year. It is estimated that the total number for the current financial year will fall between 90 and 100 press notices.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149263]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department runs no publicity campaigns and hence has spent nothing on advertising since its creation in July 1999. Its predecessor Department, the Welsh Office, spent £1,795,000 in 1996–97, £2,661,000 in 1997–98, and £2,685,000 in 1998–99. All the individual campaigns are evaluated separately, taking into account effectiveness and value for money.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) countries, (b) international organisations and (c) non-governmental organisations are involved in providing aid to Kosovo. [148927]

  Clare Short
  According to information provided by the OSCE office in Kosovo and the Kosovo Department of Reconstruction, there are 25 countries, 12 international organisations and 402 international non-governmental organisations involved in providing aid to Kosovo.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of the United Kingdom aid programme in Kosovo. [148928]

  Clare Short
  We have recently reviewed progress against the strategy for our development programme in Kosovo prepared in January 2000. We have made the transition from humanitarian assistance to targeted technical assistance for longer-term capacity building focused on areas such as social welfare, public administration reform and health. We are also working closely with the European Agency for Reconstruction and the World Bank. We are revising our strategic objectives for the next phase of support to Kosovo.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review the(a) focus and (b) co-ordination of the international aid effort in Kosovo. [148929]

  Clare Short
  Co-ordination of international assistance to Kosovo is the responsibility of the UN Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). We have discussed priorities with the newly appointed head of UNMIK, Mr. Hans Haekkerup and his staff. The focus of the international effort should be on developing the capacity of Kosovars to take increasing levels of responsibility for public administration and service delivery.

  A donor meeting will be held in Pristina on 25–26 February to review the position and agree priorities for future aid.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service Framework Document
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to make available the Northern Ireland Prison Service Framework Document 2000–05. [149900]

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service Framework Document have now been placed in the Library.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the results of recent studies into the feasibility of providing an effective alternative to plastic baton rounds for use in crowd control situations in Northern Ireland; and what have been the costs of these studies in the last 10 years. [144690]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent Commission on Policing, recognising the need for an alternative to the baton round, recommended a research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative. The research programme was launched in July 2000, phase I of which, a literature review, is almost complete. This stage of the project has incurred only limited costs, beyond those of the staff involved. Phase II of the project, which will commence later this month, will involve a more detailed cost analysis.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) men and (b) women were serving a life prison sentence for murder in Northern Ireland on 1 January. [149625]

  Mr. Ingram
  At 1 January 2001, there were 78 men and one woman serving sentences of life imprisonment for murder in prisons in Northern Ireland. The figure of 78 men includes eight prisoners on restricted transfer to NI from the Home Office. In addition there were three males detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure (convicted of murder committed while under 18 years of age).

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General what was the average cost of a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed with a prosecution which was at an advanced stage in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [148955]

  The Solicitor-General
  No information is held which enables the Crown Prosecution Service to provide the cost of those cases where, at an advanced stage, a decision was taken not to proceed. During 2000, the average cost of all cases which have been dropped at any stage of the proceedings in the magistrates courts was estimated to be £56.44 per case.
  680W
  The CPS conducts an independent review of every case received from the police in accordance with the criteria set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. There are two stages in the decision to prosecute. Firstly, there must be sufficient evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction, and secondly the prosecution must be in the public interest. If a case fails either of these tests, then the CPS must discontinue the proceedings.

  A survey conducted during the period October to December 1998 showed that the main reasons for not proceeding were:
  in 24 per cent. of cases an essential legal element was missing from the prosecution case;
  in 14 per cent. of cases a conviction was likely to result only in a very small or nominal penalty; and
  in 13 per cent. of cases the victim of an offence refused to give evidence or retracted the evidence.

  The review of a case is a continuing process, and a case may fail either of the criteria for a prosecution at any stage. For example, the CPS may not be aware until the case is listed for trial that a key prosecution witness is unwilling or no longer willing to give evidence. Where this happens, the decision not to proceed can be taken only at this stage even though the costs of reviewing the case and preparing it for the trial have already been incurred.

TREASURY

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149242]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of press releases issued by the Treasury for the services of the Central Office of Information (COI), who distribute press releases, can be provided readily in calendar year form as follows:

  Year

  Number of press notices

  1997

  184

  1998

  239

  1999

  283

  2000

  151

  2001 to date

  10

  Future numbers cannot be predicted.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Ministers and officials in his Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148141]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.
  681W
  All relevant papers will be made available to the Inquiry being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond QC.

  Public Expenditure (Definition)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition he uses to determine whether an item of public expenditure is defined as(a) Government spending and (b) Government investment. [148832]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The Treasury uses a definition of aggregate public expenditure and investment derived from the national accounts produced by the Office for National Statistics. An explanation of the definitions and concepts can be found in the introduction to chapter 1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601).

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants are in receipt of working families tax credit while being paid less than the hourly minimum wage. [148749]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 February 2001]: This information is not available. It is not possible to establish from the data reported on the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) application form alone whether the applicant was entitled under the relevant legislation to the National Minimum Wage (NMW), and at which rate.

  Extra data are obtained for those WFTC applications which indicate that the hourly rate of pay is less than the NMW and are subject to further investigation by NMW officers. However, this process does not yield a reliable estimate of the total number of applicants paid below NMW rates.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) families and (b) children living in the London Borough of Wandsworth on 1 January have benefited from the working families tax credit. [149366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of families benefiting in Wandsworth, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W.

  The publication referred to in that answer also gives the national average number of children per family receiving Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC). The 5 per cent. sample used for these analyses is too small to yield a reliable separate estimate of the average number of children for families receiving WFTC in Wandsworth.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the estimated number of families in Morecambe and Lunesdale failing to claim Working Families Tax Credit; [148971]

  (2) how many families in Morecambe and Lunesdale have benefited from the Working Families Tax Credit. [148970]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of families in Morecambe and Lunesdale benefiting from the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster 682W
  and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001, Official Report, column 425W. No estimate of the number eligible for WFTC is available.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 568W, regarding Children's Tax Credit, for what reason he did not (a) use child benefit records to identify the address of eligible households and (b) ask non-taxpayer recipients of the claim form to pass it to taxpayers in the household. [148430]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 23 January 2001, Official Report, column 568W.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people in Yorkshire and Humberside receive the disabled person's tax credit; [149447]

  (2) how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time workers in Yorkshire have benefited from the working families tax credit. [149451]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Copies of the latest Quarterly Enquiries giving statistics for the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit are in the Library. They contain estimates of the number of recipients in each region.

  There is no single definition of what comprises full-time work. The table shows an analysis by hours worked of families in Yorkshire and The Humber receiving WFTC at August 2000.

  Thousand

  Hours normally worked, per week, by main earner

  Recipients

  16<20

  26.3

  20<24

  15.7

  24<30

  10.1

  30<36

  17.7

  36<40

  26.7

  40 and over

  30.1

  All cases

  126.6

  Note:

  Estimates based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards, and therefore subject to sampling error

  Ofgem
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the expenditure by Ofgem in 2000–01 on the merger of Offer and Ofgas; and how much of this relates to(a) redundancy, (b) refurbishment costs and (c) dilapidation. [149135]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Ofgem's 2000–01 final costs relating to the merger of Offer and Ofgas will not be available until after the end of the financial year. However, merger costs in 2000–01 are now expected to be around £14 million rather than the initial estimate of £20.2 million.

  Corus
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations Corus made to him on the strength of sterling against European currencies in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [149359]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury meets a wide range of companies every year to discuss matters of mutual interest. Many of these discussions are conducted in confidence. It would not be practical to identify all representations without incurring disproportionate cost, breaching confidence or both.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many written parliamentary questions about the Millennium Dome have been refused answer on the ground of commercial confidentiality since 1 May 1997. [147437]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Of the 1,206 questions that have been answered on the Millennium Experience since May 1997, 77 questions have been answered by this Department on which information requested has been declined on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. This represents 6.38 per cent. of all questions answered.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has answered 19 questions on the ground of commercial confidentiality in relation to the competition for the future use of the Millennium Dome.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library copies of the Sponsorship Agreement for each sponsor of the Millennium Dome. [147784]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: The details of individual contracts between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and sponsors are commercially confidential. An outline of NMEC's approach to contractual arrangements with sponsors was placed in the Libraries of the House on 17 December 1998.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the proportion of total Exchequer spending represented by his Department in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01 and (f) in each of the years covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review. [148183]

  1997–98

  1998–99

  County

  Population mid-1997

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Population mid-1998

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Avon

  991,639

  9,728

  9.81

  9,271

  9.35

  999,295

  9,795

  9.80

  13,420

  13.43

  Bedfordshire

  552,295

  6,334

  11.47

  10,156

  18.39

  556.628

  6,522

  11.72

  10,767

  19.34

  Berkshire

  797,488

  10,004

  12.54

  11,031

  13.83

  800,180

  9,576

  11.97

  16,216

  20.27

  Buckinghamshire

  677,527

  7,347

  10.84

  5,526

  8.16

  681,873

  7,983

  11.71

  8,538

  12.52

  Cambridgeshire

  712,240

  7,036

  9.88

  7,795

  10.94

  719,767

  7,709

  10.71

  10,159

  14.11

  Cheshire

  982,102

  10,124

  10.31

  13,834

  14.09

  984,280

  10,988

  11.16

  18,560

  18.86

  684W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]: My Department's spending as a proportion of Government's Total Managed Expenditure, for the years 1996–97 to 2000–04 is set out in the table.

  DCMS spending as a proportion of total managed government spending1

  Year

  DCMS (£ million)

  Total TME (£ million)

  Percentage

  1996–97

  1,483

  316,000

  0.47

  1997–98

  1,996

  322,800

  0.62

  1998–99

  2,708

  331,000

  0.82

  1999–2000

  2,902

  340,700

  0.85

  2000–012

  3,321

  371,600

  0.89

  2001–023

  3,120

  392,900

  0.79

  2002–033

  3,269

  415,400

  0.79

  2003–044

  3,339

  439,600

  0.76

  1 Excludes BBC revenue grants; includes Lottery expenditure

  2 Estimate

  3 Plans

  Over the period until 2003–04, DCMS funding will have increased by 125 per cent. in cash terms and 89 per cent. in real terms.

  Library and Leisure Services
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the levels of spending were on(a) library services and (b) leisure services per head of population in (i) Staffordshire and (ii) each other county of England (1) in the current year and (2) in each of the last three years, distinguishing in each case the element represented by Standard Spending Assessment. [148295]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is not possible to list spending on leisure services in the private and voluntary sectors. However, local authorities do report their own expenditure on leisure services and these data are shown for Staffordshire and every other county1 in England on a per head basis in the table. Local authorities report their own expenditure on library services and this is also shown for Staffordshire and other counties1 in England on a per head basis. A definition for this expenditure data follows.

  The SSA system does not make a separate provision for library or leisure services; rather these are two of the many services funded through the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA Block. Consequently, I am unable to provide the information requested.

  Definition of Expenditure Data

  Expenditure on services is defined as net current expenditure on employees and running expenses less sales, fees, charges, internal recharges, other non-grant income (such as receipts from other authorities). It is gross of expenditure funded by specific and special grants.
  1The figure for each county includes all local authorities within that area.
  685W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  County

  Population mid-1997

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Population mid-1998

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Cleveland

  555,842

  7,772

  13.98

  12,285

  22.10

  556,344

  7,811

  14.04

  13,687

  24.60

  Cornwall

  485,621

  4,774

  9.83

  4,232

  8.71

  488,373

  5,418

  11.09

  7,650

  15.66

  Cumbria

  492,113

  5,129

  10.42

  7,447

  15.13

  492,884

  5,278

  10.71

  11,195

  22.71

  Derbyshire

  965,460

  9,778

  10.13

  10,886

  11.28

  970,087

  10,631

  10.96

  14,451

  14.90

  Devon

  1,063,900

  9,526

  8.95

  11,882

  11.17

  1,068,388

  9,737

  9.11

  20,046

  18.76

  Dorset

  687,520

  8,374

  12.18

  5,295

  7.70

  691,215

  8,584

  12.42

  11,577

  16.75

  Durham

  608,349

  6,043

  9.93

  12,166

  20.00

  607,770

  6,670

  10.97

  14,349

  23.61

  East Sussex

  740,733

  8,141

  10.99

  9,068

  12.24

  747,183

  8,045

  10.77

  16,998

  22.75

  Essex

  1,595,278

  19,062

  11.95

  18,700

  11.72

  1,605,622

  20,337

  12.67

  25,702

  16.01

  Gloucestershire

  559,287

  5,689

  10.17

  5,537

  9.90

  557,257

  6,114

  10.97

  10,854

  19.48

  Hampshire

  1,636,640

  19,042

  11.63

  22,424

  13.70

  1,643,958

  19,171

  11.66

  33,157

  20.17

  Hereford and Worcester

  701,726

  5,861

  8.35

  8,084

  11.52

  706,120

  5,835

  8.26

  11,377

  16.11

  Hertfordshire

  1,024,764

  13,404

  13.08

  11,913

  11.63

  1,033,616

  12,775

  12.36

  16,686

  16.14

  Humberside

  884,714

  10,702

  12.10

  18,517

  20.93

  883,117

  11,142

  12.62

  24,108

  27.30

  Isle of Wight

  125,896

  1,341

  10.65

  1,649

  13.10

  126,989

  1,359

  10.70

  3,926

  30.92

  Kent

  1,565,960

  15,717

  10.04

  16,430

  10.49

  1,574,561

  15,516

  9.85

  29,314

  18.62

  Lancashire

  1,425,127

  15,986

  11.22

  20,314

  14.25

  1,426,839

  17,249

  12.09

  29,000

  20.32

  Leicestershire

  929,027

  7,655

  8.24

  14,974

  16.12

  928,716

  9,798

  10.55

  16,216

  17.46

  Lincolnshire

  619,388

  6,065

  9.79

  6.856

  11.07

  623,130

  6,222

  9.99

  13,069

  20.97

  Norfolk

  783,042

  7,636

  9.75

  8,607

  10.99

  790,275

  7,822

  9.90

  13,191

  16.69

  Northamptonshire

  610,302

  6,230

  10.21

  6,392

  10.47

  615,796

  6,133

  9.96

  9,109

  14.79

  Northumberland

  308,767

  2,766

  8.96

  4,551

  14.74

  309,642

  2,694

  8.70

  6,846

  22.11

  North Yorkshire

  737,632

  6,715

  9.10

  9,846

  13.35

  742,404

  7,022

  9.46

  12,178

  16.40

  Nottinghamshire

  1,032,169

  11,285

  10.93

  16,787

  16.26

  1,031,587

  11,330

  10.98

  22,149

  21.47

  Oxfordshire

  610,805

  5,298

  8.67

  6,197

  10.15

  616,707

  5,835

  9.46

  9,252

  15.00

  Shropshire

  424,565

  3,790

  8.93

  5,056

  11.91

  430,212

  3,840

  8.93

  6,607

  15.36

  Somerset

  486,682

  4,208

  8.65

  3,874

  7.96

  489,280

  4,588

  9.38

  6,349

  12.98

  Staffordshire

  1,060,262

  10,581

  9.98

  13,525

  12.76

  1,061,280

  10,961

  10.33

  19,514

  18.39

  Suffolk

  666,585

  6,234

  9.35

  7,236

  10.86

  671,095

  6,127

  9.13

  11,704

  17.44

  Surrey

  1,057,137

  10,463

  9.90

  6,422

  6.07

  1,060,541

  10,431

  9.84

  9,292

  8.76

  Warwickshire

  503,589

  5,187

  10.30

  5,999

  11.91

  506,713

  5,833

  11.51

  8,075

  15.94

  West Sussex

  746,602

  7,529

  10.08

  10,747

  14.39

  751,845

  7,607

  10.12

  14,800

  19.68

  Wiltshire

  599,365

  5,761

  9.61

  11,058

  18.45

  605,511

  6,180

  10.21

  15,293

  25.26

  Greater London Council

  7,116,936

  138,853

  19.51

  96,405

  13.55

  7,182,062

  139,285

  19.39

  104,290

  14.52

  Greater Manchester

  2,571,849

  33.237

  12.92

  36,555

  14.21

  2,577,434

  35,171

  13.65

  42,599

  16.53

  Mersey side

  1,413,441

  21,232

  15.02

  21,642

  15.31

  1,409,371

  21,705

  15.40

  28,121

  19.95

  South Yorkshire

  1,304,539

  15,055

  11.54

  38,622

  29.61

  1,304,136

  15,326

  11.75

  43,697

  33.51

  Tyne and Wear

  1,121,406

  16,650

  14.85

  26,321

  23.47

  1,115,844

  16,986

  15.22

  30,356

  27.20

  West Midlands

  2,630,642

  35,272

  13.41

  33,476

  12.73

  2,628,196

  36,873

  14.03

  39,783

  15.14

  West Yorkshire

  2,110,095

  22,412

  10.62

  28,609

  13.56

  2,113,252

  22,351

  10.58

  37,184

  17.60

  No County Area

  5,235

  0

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  5,210

  0

  0.00

  1,042

  200.00

  Scilly Isles

  1,959

  17

  8.68

  0

  0.00

  1,997

  23

  11.52

  0

  0.00

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  County

  Population mid-1999

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Population mid-2000

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Avon

  1,008,114

  10,619

  10.53

  10,671

  10.59

  1,008,114

  11,089

  11.00

  14,073

  13.96

  Bedfordshire

  562,214

  7,138

  12.70

  11,110

  19.76

  562,214

  7,434

  13.22

  12,096

  21.51

  Berkshire

  800,567

  11,056

  13.81

  13,935

  17.41

  800,567

  11,374

  14.21

  14,499

  18.11

  Buckinghamshire

  689,433

  8,214

  11.91

  10,021

  14.54

  689,433

  8,789

  12.75

  10,314

  14.96

  Cambridgeshire

  724,897

  8,186

  11.29

  13,236

  18.26

  724,897

  7,797

  10.76

  11,882

  16.39

  Cheshire

  982,527

  9,961

  10.14

  14,195

  14.45

  982,527

  12,392

  12.61

  16,835

  17.13

  Cleveland

  555,944

  7,979

  14.35

  12,784

  23.00

  555,944

  8,756

  15.75

  14,543

  26.16

  Cornwall

  492,569

  5.554

  11.28

  8,598

  17.46

  492,569

  5,532

  11.23

  7,917

  16.07

  Cumbria

  491,814

  5,220

  10.61

  12,626

  25.67

  491,814

  5,111

  10.39

  14,737

  29.96

  Derbyshire

  974,084

  10,949

  11.24

  13,576

  13.94

  974,084

  11,836

  12.15

  16,207

  16.64

  Devon

  1,075,011

  10,263

  9.55

  23,325

  21.70

  1,075,011

  10,357

  9.63

  22,962

  21.36

  Dorset

  692,543

  8,915

  12.87

  11,752

  16.97

  692,543

  9,489

  13.70

  10,077

  14.55

  Durham

  606,744

  6,696

  11.04

  14,858

  24.49

  606,744

  7,125

  11.74

  14,538

  23.96

  East Sussex

  754,339

  8,394

  11.13

  18,072

  23.96

  754,339

  8,732

  11.58

  16,575

  21.97

  Essex

  1,617,660

  21,135

  13.07

  27,507

  17.00

  1,617,660

  21,584

  13.34

  28,004

  17.31

  Gloucestershire

  561,941

  6,181

  11.00

  9,923

  17.66

  561,941

  6,397

  11.38

  10,437

  18.57

  Hampshire

  1,652.818

  19,569

  11.84

  38,929

  23.55

  1,652,818

  20,295

  12.28

  39,775

  24.06

  Hereford and Worcester

  708,194

  6,176

  8.72

  13,217

  18.66

  708,194

  6,400

  9.04

  12,762

  18.02

  Hertfordshire

  1,043,028

  13,368

  12.82

  14,003

  13.43

  1,043,028

  13,876

  13.30

  17,547

  16.82

  Humberside

  881,586

  11,211

  12.72

  26,208

  29.73

  881,586

  12,169

  13.80

  28,048

  31.82

  Isle of Wight

  128,231

  1,482

  11.56

  4,387

  34.21

  128,231

  1,462

  11.40

  3,695

  28.82

  Kent

  1.587,243

  19,515

  12.29

  32,986

  20.78

  1,587,243

  18,805

  11.85

  30,125

  18.98

  Lancashire

  1.425,533

  17,851

  12.52

  31,407

  22.03

  1,425,533

  18,918

  13.27

  28,203

  19.78

  Leicestershire

  934,687

  9,904

  10.60

  17,885

  19.13

  934,687

  11,287

  12.08

  19,599

  20.97

  Lincolnshire

  628,612

  6,630

  10.55

  14,020

  22.30

  628,612

  6,273

  9.98

  13,394

  21.31

  Norfolk

  796,460

  8,293

  10.41

  12,496

  15.69

  796,460

  9,346

  11.73

  13,556

  17.02

  686W 687W

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  County

  Population mid-1999

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Population mid-1998

  Library x £1,000

  £ per head

  Leisure x £1,000

  £ per head

  Northamptonshire

  621,162

  6,369

  10.25

  11,752

  18.92

  621,162

  6,235

  10.04

  9,387

  15.11

  Northumberland

  310,168

  2,879

  9.28

  7,189

  23.18

  310,168

  3,016

  9.72

  7,089

  22.86

  North Yorkshire

  747,613

  7,159

  9.58

  13,386

  17.90

  747,613

  7,319

  9.79

  13,821

  18.49

  Nottinghamshire

  1,032,685

  11,561

  11.20

  23,500

  22.76

  1,032,685

  13,653

  13.22

  24,272

  23.50

  Oxfordshire

  626,233

  5,756

  9.19

  9,606

  15.34

  626,233

  6,114

  9.76

  11,533

  18.42

  Shropshire

  432,383

  3,975

  9.19

  7,060

  16.33

  432,383

  4,117

  9.52

  8,083

  18.69

  Somerset

  493,079

  4,379

  8.88

  8,668

  17.58

  493,079

  4,863

  9.86

  7,645

  15.50

  Staffordshire

  1,060,606

  10,510

  9.91

  19,849

  18.71

  1,060,606

  11,388

  10.74

  19,917

  18.78

  Suffolk

  674,639

  6,391

  9.47

  12,520

  18.56

  674,639

  6,721

  9.96

  11,520

  17.08

  Surrey

  1,078,067

  11,250

  10.44

  12,964

  12.03

  1,078,067

  11,475

  10.64

  13,030

  12.09

  Warwickshire

  507,909

  6,441

  12.68

  8,323

  16.39

  507,909

  7,334

  14.44

  9,465

  18.64

  West Sussex

  760,652

  7,663

  10.07

  16,520

  21.72

  760,652

  7,762

  10.20

  16,204

  21.30

  Wiltshire

  610,326

  6,655

  10.90

  18,854

  30.89

  610,326

  7,068

  11.58

  15,593

  25.55

  Greater London Council

  7,279,038

  141,872

  19.49

  128,803

  17.70

  7,279,038

  145,854

  20.04

  120,814

  16.60

  Greater Manchester

  2,577,040

  35,960

  13.95

  45,416

  17.62

  2,577,040

  38,395

  14.90

  46,809

  18.16

  Merseyside

  1,403,625

  21,669

  15.44

  30,386

  21.65

  1,403,625

  22,779

  16.23

  30,826

  21.96

  South Yorkshire

  1,302,410

  15,714

  12.07

  41,266

  31,68

  1,302,410

  16,122

  12.38

  39,093

  30.02

  Tyne and Wear

  1,108,458

  17,212

  15.53

  31,000

  27.97

  1,108,458

  18,205

  16.42

  35,253

  31.80

  West Midlands

  2,626,505

  36,948

  14.07

  43,144

  16.43

  2,626,505

  38,425

  14.63

  47,930

  18.25

  West Yorkshire

  2,115,380

  22,219

  10.50

  42,860

  20.26

  2,115,380

  22,854

  10.80

  43,124

  20.39

  No County Area

  6,007

  0

  0.00

  1,378

  229.40

  6,007

  0

  0.00

  3,486

  580.32

  Scilly Isles

  2,086

  31

  14.86

  66

  31.64

  2,086

  33

  15.82

  77

  36.91

  1 Population figures as at mid-1999

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Funding
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on education funding for Sefton metropolitan council since 1997. [147919]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For Sefton, SSA has increased from over £106 million in 1997–98 to £132 million in 2001–02. During this period, over £27 million has been allocated to schools capital. In 2001–02 over £12 million has been allocated for other grants, including the Standards Fund and School Standards Grant. Under this Government, funding nationally per pupil has already increased by over £300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent meetings he has had with local education authorities to discuss the level of school funding. [147929]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My ministerial colleagues and I regularly talk to representatives of LEAs about the level of school funding. In 2001–02, real terms funding per pupil will rise in England by £150, following an increase of £300 since 1997. This contrasts with a cut of £60 per pupil between 1994–97 in real terms.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received(a) from and (b) on behalf of Worcestershire head teachers about the funding of education in the county; and if he will make a statement. [147933]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the funding of education in Worcestershire from and on behalf of head teachers in the county. On top of the significant increases that have already been announced for 2001–02, we have made an extra £52 million available to provide 688W
  support to help some local education authorities manage funding changes in 2001–02. Worcestershire will receive £1.35 million as its share of this additional funding, which will help the authority deal with known pressures in advance of the longer term revision of local authority finance.

  Early Years Education
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in achieving greater integration between child care and early years education. [147920]

  Ms Hodge
  Bringing together child care and early years education is a vital principle underpinning our approach to this area. It makes sense both for children and for the modern family. We are developing a range of initiatives to support this principle—Sure Start, Early Excellence Centres and the Neighbourhood Reserves Initiatives which all aim to join-up early years education and child care. We will be extending these programmes and setting clear targets for EYDCPs to create new additional integrated placed for young children.

  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made towards providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. [147921]

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made towards providing universal free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. [147934]

  Ms Hodge
  All four-year-olds have been able to access a free early education place since 1998. By 2004 we will provide a free place for every three-year-old. Recently, we announced the funding for 2001–02, which will enable us to provide 80,000 more free nursery places for three-year-olds as part of the programme of expansion. We are doubling the amount spent on nursery education from £1 billion to £2 billion by 2004.
  689W
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children in England receive education at(a) three and (b) four years old. [147930]

  Ms Hodge
  Almost 100 per cent. of four-year-olds and 85 per cent. of three-year-olds receive some amount of nursery education each week. All four-year-olds have been able to access a free early education place since 1998. By 2004 we will provide a free place for every three-year-old.

  State Schools (Repairs)
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to address the backlog of building improvements and replacement required by state schools. [147922]

  Jacqui Smith
  Investment in school buildings over the next three years will total £7.8 billion. This is in addition to over £2 billion being invested in school buildings this year. By 2003–04, this will rise to £3.2 billion a year. This contrasts with the £683 million spent in 1996–97. It means that 650 schools will be completely rebuilt or refurbished; over 7,000 schools will have major repairs; every school will have a share of £1 billion for capital improvements.

  Bett Report
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Higher Education Funding Council for England about the implementation of the Bett report on pay in the higher education sector. [147923]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd),Official Report columns 1065–66.

  Act of Worship
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which collective acts of worship are taking place in school. [147924]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ofsted inspections underpin our commitment that all schools are expected to make provision for a daily act of collective worship. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' annual report for 1998–99, published in February 2000, revealed that 94 per cent. of primary schools provide a daily act of collective worship. The report says that in most schools teachers work hard to make collective worship a meaningful experience which provides pupils with a chance to reflect on important issues and builds a sense of community.

  Learning Support/Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with teacher representatives about the establishment of learning support units and pupil referral units. [147925]

  Jacqui Smith
  We discuss such issues regularly as we meet representatives of the teacher associations about discipline and other issues. We are providing £174 million 690W
  from April to tackle truancy, improve discipline and educate excluded pupils. Schools have welcomed the increased provision and the fact that there are 1,000 more places in PRUs for excluded pupils than in 1997, as well as plans for over 1,000 in-school units by 2002.

  However, it is for local education authorities and the senior management teams of schools between them to decide where best to establish Learning Support Units to meet identified needs. Before opening or closing a Pupil Referral Unit, local education authorities should consult locally, including other Pupil Referral Units and their management committees, which may include headteachers.

  School Places (Southwark)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of(a) nursery school places for four year-olds, (b) primary school places for five year-olds and (c) secondary school places for 11 year-olds available in the London borough of Southwark in the year 2001–02, and the number of children of each age group during the same year. [147928]

  Mrs. Hodge
  My Department does not collect detailed information on the provision of nursery or school places by local education authorities in England. It is for each local education authority to plan and keep under review the supply of school places so as to ensure there is sufficient provision to meet demand. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires every local education authority to prepare a School Organisation Plan (SOP). The SOP sets out how the authority proposes to deal with surplus or deficits of school provision over a five-year period and sets out the context for proposals for changes in school organisation. Where LEAs can demonstrate insufficient school places to meet future demand they may apply to the Department for capital funding to provide additional places for statutory aged children. The spring 2000 nursery education grant headcount showed in Southwark there were 2,866 four-year-old pupils. The annual school census for January 2000 showed that there were 3,181 pupils aged five in maintained primary schools and 2,040 11 year olds in maintained secondary schools.

  New Deal (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal in Liverpool. [147931]

  Ms Jowell
  At the end of November 2000, 12,680 young people in Liverpool had started the New Deal programme. In Liverpool, the programme has helped 5,350 young people move from benefit into work, through the commitment of over 1,400 employers. We know that many more young people will have left the New Deal for jobs without telling the Employment Service: they are not included in these figures.

  In Liverpool the falls in unemployment among the New Deal for Young People client group have also been substantially faster than for other groups. In Liverpool, since April 1998, claimant unemployment among those aged 18–24, unemployed for six months or more, has fallen by 70 per cent. from 3,232 to 952. This compares

  691W
  with a fall of 25 per cent. in total unemployment, 33 per cent. in total youth (18–24) unemployment, and 38 per cent. in the total number unemployed for six months or more.

  Other New Deals are also showing encouraging results. For example, 6,944 people had entered New Deal 25+ at November 2000, with 1,243 having found employment. To the end of October, 2,718 people had participated in New Deal for Lone Parents with 853 moving into employment.

  Teacher Vacancies and Recruitment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of teacher shortages in Buckinghamshire schools. [147932]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest figures available show that there were 55 vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Buckinghamshire in January 2000. My Department has received no reports from Buckinghamshire local education authority that would call into question the ability of any school in the county to offer a full timetable to date.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent meetings he has had with parents of schoolchildren to discuss the number of vacancies in the teaching profession. [147938]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent meetings he has had with teachers to discuss teacher recruitment. [147926]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing),Official Report columns 1054–55.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number of vacancies in the teaching profession at the latest date for which figures are available. [147927]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest comprehensive figures published by my Department, based on a census of English local authorities taken in January 2000, showed 1,420 vacancies for full-time posts in maintained nursery and primary schools, 1,250 vacancies for full-time posts in secondary schools and 240 vacancies for full-time posts in special schools. The results from two sample surveys of schools in England, undertaken by my Department in the first week of this term, published on 2 February, estimate that there were between 600 and 1,100 vacancies for full-time posts in nursery and primary schools and between 1,300 and 1,600 vacancies for full-time posts in secondary schools.

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in developing a national New Deal for Disabled People. [147935]

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in developing a national New Deal for Disabled People. [147939]
  692W
  Ms Hodge
  The New Deal for Disabled People is being extended nationally. Building on the lessons of the pilot phase, the extension will see the creation of a network of job brokers who will work closely with both employers and clients to match vacancies against the skills and potential of individuals. An invitation to tender was issued on 27 November and the evaluation of bids from organisations wishing to become job brokers is due to commence shortly. Announcement of successful bidders is planned for early April with the service due to get under way from July 2001.

  Class Sizes (Secondary Schools)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class size is for secondary schools in England. [147936]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The size of the average secondary class in January 1997 was 21.7. The most recent available figure, for January 2000, was 22—around five fewer pupils on average than for primaries. The slight rise is nothing new. The figure was below 20 in 1989, and rose consistently throughout the 90s. The rate of growth has in fact slowed since 1997 as a result of additional Government investment.

  We are delivering our infant class size pledge, including in Lancashire. In the authority in September 2000, just 16 per cent. of pupils were in infant classes of 31 or over. The figure in January 1997 was over 42 per cent.

  Coalfield Communities (Economic Activity)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on initiatives he has taken to improve economic activity rates in former coalfield communities. [147937]

  Ms Jowell
  We now have action teams for jobs in many of our coalfield areas suffering with the lowest employment rates; Easington Wansbeck, Sunderland, Tyneside, Rotherham and Bamsley and Doncaster are all covered by action teams and there are some early success stories—for example, of the 138 contacts made in Easington, 60 of these have resulted in jobs. In Doncaster, the employment zone offers tailored support to help former mine workers back into work. The New Deal covers all areas of the country including former coalfield areas. By the end of November, it had helped over 269,000 young people off benefit and into work. The new Learning and Skills Council will target support for those people who have been victims of industrial and economic change, and provide the skills and training that people need to find sustainable employment. Matters relating to Wales should be addressed to the Welsh Assembly.

  GCSE Courses
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the modularisation of GCSE courses. [147940]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have no plans to increase the modularisation of GCSE courses.

  Child Care (Labour Market)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what impact the expansion in child care and early years services has had on the labour market. [147941]

  Ms Hodge
  Since 1997 there has been an unprecedented expansion of child care places. By September 2000 more than 546,000 children had been helped through the creation of new child care places. Even after regard has been given to places closing when childminders or playgroup workers move on, this still represents new places for 343,000 children.

  It has also led to a large expansion in the number of people working in child care and related occupations in the UK—122,000 since autumn 1997. This is the second fastest growing occupational groups in the UK Labour market, showing how the national child care strategy is producing opportunities for work as well as opportunities for children.

  Employment Zones
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the establishment of employment zones. [147942]

  Ms Jowell
  The 15 employment zones have got off to a very encouraging start and the numbers of people getting and keeping work are exceeding expectations. Individual needs are being met through personal job accounts and strong local leadership. We will in due course evaluate and spread the good practice which emerges.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment has been made of the performance of the Disability Rights Commission. [147915]

  Ms Hodge
  I have regular meetings with the chairman and chief executive of the Disability Rights Commission to review performance. The commission has got off to an excellent start. It is receiving over 1,000 calls a week on its helpline. The Government have asked it to tackle a range of policy issues and it is making good progress in raising public awareness of both the DRC itself and disability issues.

  British Academy
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the provision of grant-in-aid to the British Academy. [149832]

  Mr. Wicks
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the Main Supply Estimates, we intend to allocate to the British Academy a maximum of £36,441,000 for the financial year 2001–02. The level of grant for 2001–02 reflects the outcome of the Government's Spending Review. It takes into account the arrangements for the payment of grant through the academy of the arts and Humanities Research Board for postgraduate awards and 694W
  for those in certain professional and vocational subjects. The grant for 2001–02 fully takes into account the uprating needed to increase maintenance grants for doctoral students. The Arts and Humanities Research Board should increase these grants to a minimum of £7,500 in 2001–02, in line with the Secretary of State's commitment last summer that arts and humanities stipends would be raised in line with those for science, with a minimum level of £9,000 by 2003–04. The grant also includes the additional £750,000 for the British School at Rome.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's support for rural schools. [148391]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government support rural schools. The White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future—A Fair Deal for Rural England", published in November last year, reinforced our commitment to continue a presumption against the closure of rural schools, invest to improve facilities, and connect all rural schools to the internet by 2002. As a result of our policies, only two rural schools have been approved for closure since August 1999, against a historical average of 30 such closures a year. Many rural schools are also small schools and benefit from the administrative support fund for small schools and the small schools support fund. From April 2001, these standards fund grants will be merged into a single small schools fund worth £80 million.

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Excellence in Cities programme. [148534]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Excellence in Cities (EiC) addresses the educational problems of our major cities. It provides new opportunities for gifted and talented children; learning mentors to tackle barriers to learning; learning support units to take disruptive pupils out of the classroom; city learning centres; small education action zones; and more beacon and specialist schools.

  The programme has been running just over a year in the first 25 local education authorities. By September this year, there will be 58 authorities in the programme covering close to a third of all secondary pupils aged 11 to 16. We will also be introducing excellence clusters in seven areas from September which will pilot the EiC approach in areas of deprivation beyond the big cities—such as rural areas and coastal towns.

  Excellence in Cities is already making a real difference. Last year, in the first EiC areas, the percentage of pupils getting five good GSCEs or their equivalent increased by nearly twice as much as it did in other areas. The biggest increases were in the most deprived schools where over half the pupils are entitled to free school meals. In those same areas the numbers of pupils leaving schools with no qualifications fell twice as fast as elsewhere.

  Finally, Excellence in Cities has provided dramatic examples of reductions in exclusions. The whole programme has been widely welcomed by schools and teachers.
  695W
  All this underpins our commitment to a programme which, when fully implemented, will account for over £300 million a year, and will change both the perception and reality of our city schools. A detailed account of the first year of the EiC programme is contained in our publication "Excellence in Cities Report: March 1999 to September 2000" (a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Burial Charges
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for assistance with burial charges have been made to the Social Fund in each of the last five years, and how many have been granted(a) in full and (b) in part; and if he will make a statement. [148321]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1996–97

  Applications1

  69,730

  72,967

  74,275

  88,169

  Full awards2

  2,665

  3,027

  3,386

  2,805

  Partial awards3

  39,207

  40,838

  41,387

  51,688

  1 The applications column shows all new applications received in the year 1 April to 31 March, including applications subsequently withdrawn.

  2 Awards are those processed in the year 1 April to 31 March. These will include applications received at the end of the previous year but not processed until the year indicated, and will exclude applications received at the end of that year but not processed until the following year. This column includes payments subsequently returned and excludes awards made or altered following a successful appeal.

  3 1995–96 data are not sufficiently reliable to provide a breakdown between full and partial awards.

  Source:

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on pensioners' incomes of reducing the winter fuel allowance by £50. [148483]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our reform of the pensions system demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the country, and to combating pensioner poverty. This year the Winter Fuel Payment is £200. This is double the amount paid last winter, 1999–2000, to qualifying households. The Winter Fuel Payment will continue to play an important role in the fight against fuel poverty and will mean that older people should not have to worry about keeping their homes warm over the winter months. The Winter Fuel Payment, which the hon. Member opposes, has proved to be extremely popular. We shall announce our proposals for this winter in due course in the usual way.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims had been made by people living in the Southport constituency for the winter fuel allowance by 26 January; [148591]
  696W
  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women living in the Southport constituency are entitled to receive winter fuel allowance. [148592]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information regarding how many claims were made by 26 January is not available in constituency format and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The latest information we have is that around 22,500 people in the Southport constituency have already received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter. Claims are still being received and processed therefore payments continue to be made. This information is not available for men and women separately.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if all payments for the winter fuel allowance have been paid; and if he will make a statement. [149479]

  Mr. Rooker
  Around 11 million Winter Fuel Payments have been made in respect of this winter. As promised, all automatic payments, where clear entitlement was established, were made before Christmas. The same applies to payments in respect of successful claims determined by 9 November 2000. Claims continue to be received and processed, therefore payments continue to be made. In the minority of cases where a person's circumstances changed between the qualifying week and the payment week, cases are dealt with clerically.

  Pensions (Expatriates)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances he will review the regulations surrounding frozen pensions for British citizens who have moved outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [149629]

  Mr. Rooker
  UK pensions are paid to anyone who satisfies the qualifying conditions, not just UK nationals. Annual upratings have never been generally paid abroad. The exception is those countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. We have no plans to change this.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of abolishing the regulations associated with freezing pensions for British citizens who have moved outside the United Kingdom. [149628]

  Mr. Rooker
  To unfreeze fully pensions paid abroad would cost an estimated £300 million a year. This would mean that we would have less to spend on pensioners living in the United Kingdom. Our priority is to focus the resources available on pensioners in the UK, especially those who are in greatest need. There are no plans to unfreeze pensions in countries where upratings are not payable.

  Retirement Benefits
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Morecambe benefit from(a) the winter fuel allowance, (b) free television licences and (c) the Minimum Income Guarantee. [148969]
  697W
  Mr. Rooker
  For information on Winter Fuel Payments and free television licences, I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 31 January 2001,Official Report, column 238W.

  For information on recipients of the Minimum Income Guarantee, I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave on 5 February 2001, Official Report, column 364W.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what public expenditure on pensions including Winter Fuel Payments and Free Television Licences was at the end of the{a) 1996–97, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 1999–2000 financial years; [148975]

  (2) how much has been spent on the provision of State Pensions, including Winter Fuel Payments and Free Television Licences from 1997 to date. [149083]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  £ million cash terms

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Retirement Pension

  31,995

  37,726

  38,745

  Non-contributory Retirement Pension

  30

  28

  27

  Winter Fuel Payments

  0

  902

  1,701

  Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,815

  3,812

  4,082

  Social Fund

  41

  26

  29

  Christmas Bonus

  111

  106

  107

  Non-contributory Christmas Bonus

  15

  16

  17

  Concessionary TV licences

  0

  0

  346

  Total

  40,808

  47,774

  50,248

  Notes:

  1. Consistent with Social Security benefit expenditure totals published in the pre-Budget report, November 2000, and in Departmental Reports for earlier years.

  2. Winter Fuel Payments were introduced in the winter of 1997–98.

  3. The Free Television Licence scheme began in November 2000, and is administered by TV Licensing for the BBC.

  4. Any household where a person is aged 75 or over is entitled to a free TV Licence.

  5. State Pension Age is currently age 60 for women and age 65 for men.

  6. Men and women aged 60 and over are entitled to Winter Fuel Payments. The amount is £200 per household.

  7. The figures provided relate to Income Support/MIG/Social Fund for men and women aged 60 or over.

  8. The figures quoted for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are assuming a qualifying condition based on age, ie 60 for women and age 65 for men.

  9. Christmas Bonus is paid mainly to pensioners but includes other categories of claimants. It is paid with pensions and Income Support to people over pension age.

  Fraud (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to reduce(a) benefit fraud and (b) housing benefit fraud in Morecambe and Lunesdale. [148965]

  Mr. Rooker
  After years of neglect, we are getting to grips with Social Security fraud. We are implementing a strategy to tighten up the system and make sure that from the very first claim, the right benefits are going to the right people at the right time. We have set ourselves firm targets to reduce the losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 25 per cent. by March 2004, and 50 per cent. by March 2006.
  698W
  We have saved more than £150 million over two years by cross-checking departmental records with information from other Government Departments. More than 22,000 people were sanctioned or prosecuted in 1999–2000, an increase of nearly 60 per cent. on the previous year. We published figures last November which showed that losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance had fallen for the first time, a saving of around £60 million.

  We continue to invest to help local authorities root out Housing Benefit fraud. We have provided over £100 million since 1998 so that local authorities can implement the verification framework which protects the gateway to benefit by setting out minimum standards for collecting evidence before claims are paid. Over 350 councils are now using the Royal Mail scheme to stop benefit cheques being redirected from the address they have been claimed for.

  Our £2 million programme to make better use of IT has given 404 local authorities on-line access to essential benefit information held on departmental systems, reducing the scope for fraud and error. We are now building on this through the integrated inquiry service, which will give authorities access to further information to help combat fraud, including the Department's database of National Insurance numbers. Our new anti-fraud incentive scheme is being phased in from April and will make the gateway to Housing Benefit more secure, putting the focus on prevention as well as detection. The new scheme sets out the anti-fraud activities we expect local authorities to undertake, and it introduces new financial rewards for authorities that act to prevent fraud from happening in the first place.

  These are just some of the measures that have already started to make a significant reduction in fraud and error in areas such as Morecambe and Lunesdale. These will be further strengthened by the new measures proposed in the Social Security Fraud Bill currently before Parliament.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) are eligible to claim and (b) claim the Minimum Income Guarantee in each parliamentary constituency in Scotland. [149591]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Income Support (MIG) pensioner cases1 by Scottish parliamentary constituency, as at August 2000

  Thousand

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of cases

  Aberdeen Central

  2.2

  Aberdeen North

  1.7

  Aberdeen South

  1.8

  Airdrie and Shotts

  2.4

  Angus

  2.5

  Argyll and Bute

  2.4

  Ayr

  2.4

  Banff and Buchan

  2.3

  Caithness Sunderland and Easter Ross

  1.6

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  2.8

  Central Fife

  2.1

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  2.4

  Clydesbank

  2.9

  699W

  Income Support (MIG) pensioner cases1 by Scottish parliamentary constituency, as at August 2000

  Thousand

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of cases

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  3.0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1.9

  Cunninghame North

  2.5

  Cunninghame South

  2.0

  Dumbarton

  2.6

  Dumfries

  2.3

  Dundee East

  3.4

  Dundee West

  2.9

  Dunfermline East

  1.9

  Dunfermline West

  1.3

  East Kilbride

  1.8

  East Lothian

  2.0

  Eastwood

  1.5

  Edinburgh Central

  2.0

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  2.7

  Edinburgh North and Leigh

  2.1

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  1.5

  Edinburgh South

  2.3

  Edinburgh West

  1.4

  Falkirk East

  2.3

  Falkirk West

  2.6

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  2.4

  Glasgow Anniesland

  3.7

  Glasgow Baillieston

  3.2

  Glasgow Cathcart

  2.5

  Glasgow Govan

  3.0

  Glasgow Kelvin

  2.9

  Glasgow Maryhill

  4.4

  Glasgow Pollok

  3.4

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  3.0

  Glasgow Shettleston

  4.7

  Glasgow Springburn

  4.4

  Gordon

  1.2

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  2.6

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  2.3

  Hamilton South

  2.4

  Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber

  2.1

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3.2

  Kirkcaldy

  2.0

  Linlithgow

  2.0

  Livingston

  2.2

  Midlothian

  1.5

  Moray

  2.0

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  3.0

  North East Fife

  1.5

  North Tayside

  2.0

  Ochil

  1.6

  Orkney and Shetland

  1.0

  Paisley North

  2.7

  Paisley South

  2.7

  Perth

  2.1

  Ross Skye and Inverness West

  2.4

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  1.8

  Stirling

  1.8

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  2.0

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1.5

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  1.3

  West Renfrewshire

  1.9

  Western Isles

  1.7

  1 MIG Pensioners are defined where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundered are expressed in thousand.
  700W
  3. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 ONS Postcode Directory.

  4. Constituency information represents constituency boundaries as at May 1997. Numbers of people eligible to claim Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) are not available. It is not possible to produce reliable estimates for different parts of Great Britain.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000

  State Pension
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of increasing the basic state pension to £92 for a single person and £138 for a couple, taking into account(a) savings in regard to (i) the minimum income guarantee and (ii) other benefits payable to pensioners and (b) the consequent increases in receipts of tax revenue. [147606]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]: The information is in the table.

  Cost of increasing the basic state pension to £92 for a single person and £138 for a couple

  Year 2001–02

  £ billion

  Gross total

  8.4

  Minimum Income Guarantee savings

  1.8

  Other income related benefit savings

  1

  Total income related benefit savings

  0.8

  Tax yield

  0.8

  Total net cost

  5.8

  Notes:

  1. All costs are given in £ billion to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Income related benefits savings are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. The tax effects are estimated by the Inland Revenue.

  5. Costs are given excluding widows and bereavement benefits whose rates are linked by law to the rate of basic Retirement Pension. Including them adds £200 million to the net costs.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press releases were issued by his Department in the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; how many have been issued in the current financial year; and what his estimate is of the total number for the current financial year. [149246]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  DSS

  291

  311

  270

  411

  Benefits Agency (BA)

  60

  42

  48

  —

  Contributions Agency (CA)

  50

  10

  3

  —

  Child Support Agency (CSA)

  10

  4

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. The information given for the year 2000 includes all Press Releases issued on behalf of the Department and its agencies.

  2. The production of Press Releases runs from January to December. To date we have issued 55 in the year 2001. It is not possible to estimate the number we will issue for the whole year.

  3. In April 2000 the BA and CSA Press Offices merged with the DSS team and consequently all Press Releases are now categorised as DSS.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bradford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Renewable Energy
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of the United Kingdom energy requirement is met from renewable sources at the present time and what they expect will be met from renewables other than wind power five years hence.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, in terms of UK electricity requirements, 2.8 per cent of present requirements are from renewable sources. The Government have proposed targets of obtaining 5 per cent of UK electricity requirements from renewable sources by the end of 2003 and 10 per cent by 2010, subject to the cost being acceptable to consumers.
In the Government's 1999 consultation paper on renewable energy there were some illustrative scenarios of the different ways in which the various forms of renewable energy might contribute to a 10 per cent target by 2010. The "trends continued" scenario, for example, showed biofuels contributing just over half the target and wind energy contributing about 35 per cent, with about one-third of that offshore. The balance between the various forms of renewable energy will be determined by the market, and individual projects will be subject to the normal planning process.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will there be continued monitoring of the various sources of renewables to determine whether they are meeting the contributions to which he referred? Will there be further consideration of the need for the development of wave power and of the adequacy of processing capacity for biomass? Although I greatly welcome the decision to promote the use of methane from landfill sites, can a similar facility be provided to promote the use of this highly noxious gas from closed collieries?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there will be continued monitoring of the different sources of renewable energy. It is the Government's policy to encourage diversity in the renewable energy sector. The renewables obligation provides a long-term stimulus to the renewable energy sector as a whole. We provide support to such areas as wave energy and photovoltaics, which we do not see in the short term as likely sources of renewable energy on a commercial
1260
scale. We are supporting biomass with £89 million of capital grants, which also support offshore wind technology, because these processes are currently very expensive. So far as concerns methane from coalmines (mine gas), we are examining possible methods for the capture and use of the gas, although mine gas is classified as a fossil fuel rather than a renewable source of energy.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, in order to meet these objectives, which I strongly recommend to the entire country, would it not be logical for Her Majesty's Government to give biodiesel the same duty rate as fossil gas fuel?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, last November the Chancellor announced a green fuel challenge to industry; it was asked to submit practical proposals for new alternative road fuels. The idea was to introduce fiscal incentives for fuels offering the most promising environmental benefits. I believe that a whole series of proposals have been put forward for a wide range of novel fuels, including biodiesel. The DETR is now examining the environmental benefits of the different fuels. Any changes will be announced in the Budget.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is reusable energy included in the list of renewables? I refer in particular to the great waste of energy from ordinary domestic chimneys. By the use of a new heat exchange mechanism, this could be recycled for domestic use. I refer also to combined heat and power schemes. Does either of these come under the heading of "renewable resources", or are they outwith it?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that they are included in the actual target for renewables. However, there are schemes to encourage combined heat and power in their own right.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some 30 per cent of Denmark's energy requirements are met by wind power, and that it has now developed 5 megawatt offshore wind turbines, which have the advantage of being able to be located a long way offshore and are thus less visible? Are such schemes part of my noble friend's programme? What support will the Government provide to get such projects off the ground? I refer to planning permission and to the financial support that is required in the early years.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the figures I gave to illustrate how the pattern might change are of interest in this context. Fifty-two per cent of our current use of renewables comes from hydro power, 39 per cent comes from biofuels of one kind or another, and 9 per cent comes from wind. Based on the projection I gave, those figures would become 11 per cent from hydro, about 53 per from biofuels, and 36 per cent from wind. So the figures include a substantial increase in wind energy, a great deal of

1261
which will come from offshore wind. As I said, we are supporting this technology with capital grants. Part of the strategy is to use higher megawatt turbines; the 5 megawatt turbine would be part of that strategy.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, what are the Government doing to encourage the domestic use of solar panels? Is there any reason why the price of solar panels remains so high, creating such a disincentive to their wider use?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the price of solar panels is high because they remain extremely expensive to make. The cost of energy produced by them is some five to seven times higher than conventional electricity, but there are plans to examine whether we can do more to increase their installation.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will my noble friend expand a little further on research into wave energy? I have an interest in this, as my son was part of the team helping Professor Stephen Salter in Edinburgh with the "nodding ducks". That research ended, but there is still great interest in this.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we do not see wave energy making a substantial contribution to our renewable needs in the short term. However, the Government are supporting the demonstration of wave energy projects, including the Limpet plant on the Hebridean island of Islay; but that will not contribute between the years 2003 and 2010.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, has there been much progress recently in the use of fuel cell technology, and is that included in the list of renewables?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is certainly included, and there has been progress. However, this technology is still some way off in terms of producing a substantial amount of renewable energy.

Prime Minister's Press Secretary
3.9 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the powers and responsibilities of the Prime Minister's press secretary.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, Alastair Campbell is appointed as a special adviser under terms and conditions set out in a model contract for special advisers. His contract has been modified to take account of his role as the Prime Minister's official spokesman and his executive responsibilities.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, it conceals more
1262
than it tells us. Does the Minister recall that the head of the Civil Service, addressing a House of Commons Select Committee in November, four months ago, said:
"The taxpayer is paying Alastair Campbell to work for the Government as the Government, not for the Labour Party"?
Is that really happening at the moment? Does it happen when the press secretary airbrushes another reluctant Minister out of history by a disparaging remark at one of his press conferences, or, indeed, when, as the Financial Times tells us this morning, he intends to use a press conference,
"to flag up ambitions for a second Labour term"?
Is there not an impossible conflict of interest here that needs resolving?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is not an impossible conflict of interest. The noble Lord will recall that at the very same Select Committee hearing the head of the Home Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary said that special advisers in the position of Mr Alastair Campbell are able to put forward a more robust defence for the Government than other civil servants. That is precisely what Mr Alastair Campbell does.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, following on from that, on how many occasions has the Cabinet Secretary had cause to upbraid the Prime Minister's Press Secretary since 1997 for behaviour incompatible with the traditional roles of a civil servant? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House if the Hammond inquiry will cover the activities of the Prime Minister's Press Secretary as regards the events surrounding Peter Mandelson's resignation, and when it will report?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not aware that the Cabinet Secretary has ever upbraided Mr Alastair Campbell in the respect suggested by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. As far as the Hammond inquiry is concerned, its terms of reference have been published in a parliamentary Answer; namely, to investigate the events of 1998 in relation to the application for a passport by the Hindujas.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, has Mr Alastair Campbell reacted in any way differently from his predecessor, Sir Bernard Ingham? Is it not a fact that hypocrisy surrounds this question?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, he does not have a knighthood like Sir Bernard Ingham. I do not know how Sir Bernard Ingham conducted himself. As far as Mr Alastair Campbell is concerned, he has conducted himself in accordance with the terms of his contract.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, if the Hammond inquiry exonerates the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will the Government act in the way in which

1263
an employer would have to act in the case of an industrial tribunal inquiry and restore one of the ablest members of the Cabinet?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the inquiry has been set up into the application for a passport. The findings are entirely a matter for Sir Anthony. We should wait until they are published before we speculate.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as it was confirmed in my debate three years ago that Mr Campbell is one of the two special advisers who have been given the full status of a civil servant, has he been asked to sign the Official Secrets Act and does he attend meetings of the Cabinet, as distinct, of course, from a kitchen cabinet?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, his obligations in relation to the Official Secrets Act are exactly the same as for any other civil servant. As far as meetings of the Cabinet are concerned, from time to time he attends but obviously as an observer.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is quite clear that Mr Alastair Campbell is a civil servant at the present time. What happens if an election is called?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Mr Alastair Campbell has made it clear that when a general election is called he will cease to be a civil servant and will work for the Labour Party.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, having been a lobby correspondent throughout the time that Sir Bernard Ingham was in power, may I tell the Minister that I can never remember an occasion on which he criticised the—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would be helpful to be told that I can never recollect an occasion on which Sir Bernard criticised the Labour Party and that he frequently refused to take a line for the Conservative Party, although he was—as he properly should be and as Mr Campbell should be—totally loyal to the Prime Minister of the day? If Mr Campbell finds it difficult to combine the roles, would not a simple solution be for him to continue in his position but to be on the payroll of the Labour Party?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling me about Sir Bernard Ingham's job as official spokesman to the then Prime Minister. As regards the present Prime Minister's official spokesman, he is well able to operate within the confines of his contract, as the Cabinet Secretary made absolutely clear at the Select Committee hearing to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred. That involves robustly putting the
1264
Government's case and, where opposition attacks on the Government are absurd, he is able to point that out.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any indication of exactly how many senior civil servants are allowed to take time off to work for their party in an election?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, special advisers are expected, if they are going to engage in party politics in the course of an election, to resign as special advisers and act as they see fit. That position in relation to special advisers was the same under the Conservative government as it is under this Government.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords opposite that I shall be brief. Am I right in concluding from the noble and learned Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell—a clansman of the person in question—that Mr Alastair Campbell has not signed the Official Secrets Act?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot be precise about the procedure but I make it clear that he is governed by the Official Secrets Act to the same extent as any other civil servant.

Television Subtitling
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to ensure the comprehensive subtitling of television programmes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on 29th January this year we announced plans to raise the target for the provision of subtitling on digital terrestrial television from 50 to 80 per cent of programming by the 10th anniversary of the start of the service. This matches the target for analogue terrestrial services. We also announced that the digital terrestrial targets for subtitling, sign language and audio description services would be extended to digital cable and digital satellite services when legislative time permits.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's Answer. Does he agree that we should support the development of subtitling for two reasons: first, for the viewing enhancement of people who are hearing impaired; and, secondly, to provide a stimulus to British industry to be at the forefront of Smart voice recognition technology,

1265
which, linked to the ability to view simultaneous translation, is where telecommunications will be heading in the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as my noble friend says, it is certainly the case that there is a technological spin-off into other fields. It is also right in itself that we should give deaf people access to a much wider variety of television programmes than has been available in the past.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to bring cable and satellite television under the remit of subtitling regulations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the announcement last week was precisely to the effect that we are doing what we can by order. For digital terrestrial services we shall lay orders to increase the targets for subtitling. As I said in my original Answer, for digital cable and digital satellite services we need primary legislation. I hesitate to suggest that there could be any defect in the Broadcasting Act 1996 passed by the previous government but it appears to be more difficult to apply it to cable and satellite.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it costs up to £400 an hour to subtitle television broadcasts. Is that not a reasonable cost to make the service available to all those who want to use it? Does not the Minister agree that there is probably an argument for enforcing this measure under the Disability Discrimination Act?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not disagree that the cost itself is reasonable, but, of course, there are issues other than cost. There is the matter of the availability of the expertise and the equipment to implement subtitling. There is also the problem with regard to, for example, live programmes or late delivery programmes, of making this provision available at a time when it is relevant to what is being shown on the screen. The question of adherence to the Disability Discrimination Act is an interesting one which would have to be tested.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, will the Minister clarify why it is thought possible and right for the BBC to reach 100 per cent subtitling by the 10th anniversary of the digital channels' creation but not feasible for the other digital terrestrial broadcasters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the BBC sets its own targets. It has set itself the target of meeting, matching or exceeding the targets set by the Independent Television Commission. The BBC has said that it aims to cover 100 per cent of all broadcasts within 10 years. However, the difficulties for the last few per cent are exactly as I described in my previous answer: live broadcast and late delivery programmes. We applaud the BBC for the efforts it has made.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the Minister made any representations to the BBC
1266
concerning the quality of programmes which have been broadcast by BBC television over the past two years? I refer in particular to the relevance and articulation—with the exception of one or two popular programmes which are very articulate and understandable. Will the Government take account of a growing dissatisfaction among the population generally about the quality of television which we are now condemned to watch?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two problems with the question. First, it does not appear to me to be relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. Secondly, as has been the case for many years under governments of more than one political complexion, Ministers do not answer in Parliament for the quality of BBC programmes, which under the BBC Charter is the responsibility of the governors of the BBC.

Tobacco Smuggling
3.21 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
nder what authority HM Customs and Excise has started to seize small quantities of cigarettes from British travellers returning from abroad and on occasion to detain the travellers incommunicado.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Statutory Instrument 1992/3155, the Excise Duties (Personal Relief) Order 1992, implementing EU Directive 92/12/ EC makes any excise goods personally imported from another member state liable to forfeiture if they are intended to be used for a commercial purpose. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 lays down strict conditions about how long persons can be detained after arrest. Unless persons commit an arrestable offence they are free to leave Customs controls at any time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Of course Customs officers have a duty to try to stop evasion of tobacco duty. However, is it acceptable to seize cigarettes—the number being well below the legal limit of 800—from an individual on the grounds that his breath did not smell of tobacco and he was carrying neither matches nor a lighter in his pocket? Is it acceptable to keep a group of passengers waiting for six hours in midwinter, as I am assured occurred, without allowing them to ring their families to say that they were safe? Is it also acceptable to tell other people who had returned to their homes in the West Midlands and north of England after the cigarettes had been confiscated that they could have their cigarettes back after all provided that they presented themselves at Dover before ten in the morning?

1267
Is it not time that the powers of Customs and Excise, which date from the autocratic 17th century—were scaled down and brought into line with the more modest powers enjoyed by the police, which date from the more enlightened 19th century?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have read the article in the Daily Telegraph to which the noble Lord refers implicitly. The responsibilities of Customs officers are to establish whether cigarettes are being imported for commercial use. In doing so, they have to take into account the commercial status of the person who bought the cigarettes, whether the cigarettes will be stored, for example, in a warehouse, whether the receipts and invoices show that they have been bought by a business and whether the cigarettes are of one brand or a mixture—in other words, whether they are intended to be smoked by one person. Under those circumstances, clearly there is an element of judgment for Customs officers to exercise.
These are openly called "smoking tours" and coaches can be stopped at Dover and Coquelles. Customs officers invite the passengers to alight from the coach, luggage is available on a carousel, and they carry out the proper inquiries as to whether those cigarettes are imported for personal use.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, while I welcome the action that the Minister is taking against small-scale tobacco smugglers, I would equally welcome the engagement of Customs and Excise in large-scale activity. Is my noble friend aware that the European Commission is pursuing a suit in the court in New York for £3 billion against Philip Morris and R J Reynolds; that the European Commission has invited every member state to join in that action; and that to date Italy, Spain and Germany have done so? Will the Minister encourage Customs and Excise also to join in that action so that the £3 billion which has been illegally extracted from the taxpayers of Europe can be recovered?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which my noble friend refers. Customs and Excise is actively considering whether to join in the case. I am sure that Treasury officials will also wish to consider the matter.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the problem is not that Customs officers are doing their job but that British tobacco manufacturers are exporting enormous quantities of cigarettes to countries where there is no market for them secure in the knowledge that illegal and criminal syndicates in those countries then return them to this country under the guise of smuggling. Is it not time that the details of the wholesaler and the countries of origin and destination are properly identified on these packets; and that the tobacco manufacturers in this country are made to accept responsibility for their part in this trade?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we would be keen to encourage any degree of openness which
1268
would deter the organised gangs involved in these operations. My noble friend will be glad to know that in the past few weeks we have broken up no fewer than 38 organised criminal gangs who have been involved in these activities.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not the real problem that our European partners give the health of their citizens a lower priority than have successive British governments in relation to smoking?
Are there any powers which would enable us to go back to old procedures whereby one could purchase 200 cigarettes—"and that's your limit, mate"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. A European directive has been accepted under unanimity provisions which changed what my noble friend calls "the old procedures". It would not be proper for me to comment on the motivations of governments of other member states.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House of the normal limit per person which our European masters allow our citizens to bring into the United Kingdom? At what threshold does the European law operate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the description of "masters". There is no fixed threshold. However, where more than 800 cigarettes are imported, Customs officers tend to make the inquiries to which I referred earlier.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, is it also true to say that the current rates of tax on cigarettes encourage a trade which seems to account for an increasing proportion of cigarettes sold in this country? As a result of that trade, the government health warning on packets of cigarettes is reaching an increasingly smaller proportion of a market, the remainder of which is denied, therefore, that valuable health warning.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount is not encouraging tax harmonisation within the European Union. If I thought that that were the case I might have to report him to the shadow Cabinet!
Yes, we have significantly higher duty than other European countries. It is incumbent on us, therefore, to do everything we can to stop illegal imports. Only last week, on the first use of the new scanner which can attack the really bulk trade in cigarettes—that is, container trade—we stopped a container in Felixstowe which contained 6 million cigarettes, saving the Revenue £1 million. One seizure was thus worth half the cost of the scanner.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister accept that my original and supplementary Questions

1269
referred not to the treatment of the guilty, which concerned some of his noble friends, but to the treatment of the innocent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course I accept that, but the trouble is that I know that the noble Lord was referring in particular to coach passengers, because that is what the Daily Telegraph article is about. Between 70 and 80 per cent of coach travellers who have goods seized are previous offenders. That is not the persecution of the innocent; it is dealing properly with what is undoubtedly an illegal trade.

Homes Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Constitution Committee
3.31 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of all public Bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Acton,

V. Cranborne,

L. Fellowes,

L. Holme of Cheltenham,

B. Howells of St. Davids,

L. Lang of Monkton,

E. Mar and Kellie,

L. Morgan,

L. Norton of Louth (Chairman),

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Weatherill,

B. Young.

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I do not wish to weary the House again with my views on specialist advisers, but as the recently set-up Joint Committee on Human Rights has now met, may I ask the Chairman of Committees whether it has made any moves on the appointment of specialist advisers and, if so, who are they and where are they from?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the legal adviser to the Joint Committee on Human Rights is
1270
Professor David Feldman, who is a full-time member of the staff of this House, shared with the House of Commons. As far as I know, the Joint Committee has not appointed any other adviser.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that the committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, is very pleased that someone of Professor Feldman's quality has been appointed as legal adviser? He is outstanding.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, will the Minister rebut an allegation that was made in the other place on 1st February during Business Questions by the Member for Islington, North, who is also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, just now? Talking about this Bill, he asked the Lord President:
"Does she accept that there is unnecessary delay in the House of Lords?"—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/01; col. 455.]
Will the Minister confirm that that is untrue? Is it not unfair that we take so much groundless flak?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that there has been no delay on the Bill. Any aspersion that has been cast in that regard is misplaced.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
RESERVATION ON TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR
(" .—(1) This Act shall have effect subject to reservation on ratification of the ICC Statute by Her Majesty's Government that Article 8 do make provision to proscribe any form of slavery, the threat of such, or other humiliating and degrading treatment of Prisoners of War, and the selection and use of Prisoners of War as hostages.
(2) The form of such provision shall be as agreed by a two-thirds majority of members of the Assembly of State Parties.").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of the amendment would oblige the Government to make a reservation on ratification of the statute about the provision of measures of protection and safeguard for

1271
prisoners of war. Subsection (2) would make the form of such a reservation a matter for the decision of members of the assembly of state parties.
As your Lordships may know, the ICC Statute will come into force when 60 states have ratified. As yet, only 27 have ratified, although well over 100 have signed, including the United Kingdom. A number of states that signed entered reservations about the proposed reform of the statute, a most notable and important example being the United States of America.
I disclosed my interest on Second Reading and set out the grounds for such a provision. There was no dissent or objection raised. I do not propose to indulge in tedious repetition. The debate is reported in the Official Report of 15th January and the material is available to your Lordships.
The amendment would not delay Royal Assent of the Bill or ratification by the United Kingdom. It would not amend the statute—it could not do so anyway. It would in no way obstruct the Government's commitment to the principle that the International Criminal Court should be set up or the implementation of our obligations under the statute. Under current procedure, members of the assembly of state parties could not give effect to such provision until about seven years had passed.
No doubt there will be many reservations on ratification concerning somewhat complex matters such as crimes of aggression, terrorist offences and jurisdiction in contest with national sovereignty. They will require definition. The amendment is relatively straightforward and simple. The situation on the protection of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the convention of 1949, set out on page 62 of the Bill under the first definition of war crimes, is manifestly unsatisfactory. That was broadly accepted by the House on Second Reading.
The amendment may commend itself to your Lordships in principle as a requisite measure for future protection of those taken prisoner as part of the baggage of war. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford: We all appreciate the concerns behind the amendment, which is based on my noble friend's acute and long-standing experience of the horrors of war. The more recent horrors of Saddam Hussein using prisoners of war as hostages and threatening to surround military targets with them also lie behind the amendment. I support that concern.
What is the Minister's general policy on reservations on ratification? Are we to make, as other countries have done, various declarations on the ratification status document covering a number of issues where we wish to interpret the Statute of Rome according to our own lights? And can she give an indication of what they would be? Obviously they will affect considerably the view which people take of this Bill and its effectiveness.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of
1272
Alloway, for raising this question. From his earlier remarks both in the Chamber and to me outside it, I know that his concerns are based on his own distinguished service and honourable experience. I hope that I shall be able to reassure not only other Members of the Committee but the noble Lord himself that the amendment is not required for what I agree to be the legitimate and proper purpose that he seeks.
Following the Second World War, as the noble Lord mentioned, in 1949 the existing Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War was updated. The new convention introduced the notion of "grave breaches"; that is, offences against protected persons—in this case, prisoners of war—which would be subject to trial by any nation in the world. We incorporated those offences into our own domestic law as long ago as 1957 in the Geneva Conventions Act. As the Committee will have seen, they are again reflected in the Rome Statute in Article 8(2)(a).
Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord will find in that part of the statute, and therefore in Schedule 8 to this Bill, all that he wishes to achieve for the prosecution of offences against prisoners of war. Specifically included are wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and the taking of hostages. I reaffirm that all those offences apply to offences committed against prisoners of war.
In addition, the conduct described in Article 8(2)(b) would also be criminal if committed against prisoners of war. Among those is Article 8(2)(b)(xxi), which concerns the committing of outrages upon personal dignity—in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
As the noble Lord mentioned, during Second Reading he drew attention to the provisions of Article 8(2)(c). That applies only in non-international armed conflict where the concept of "prisoners of war" does not exist. However, the definition of those protected under that article is wide enough to include persons made prisoner or detained during those conflicts.
The particular question was raised, both in the terms of the amendment, which speaks of reservation, and in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about reservations generally. In respect of both those questions—one implied in the amendment and one specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—I invite the Committee to look at Article 120 of the statute, which is quite short. It states that no reservations may be made to the statute. I hope that that is helpful.
However, we would expect to make a small number of interpretative statements on ratification of the Rome Statute. The purpose of those statements—I hope that this meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—would be to express our understanding of certain provisions under Article 8 of the Rome Statute. Therefore, in answer to the brutal question, as it were, of reservations pure and simple, that point is

1273
dealt with in Article 120. With regard to interpretation, I hope that I have been able to satisfy the Committee.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. It was a fairly detailed and complex reply on which I wish to reflect and have time for reflection. As at present advised, it does not cover certain of the matters—I shall not take time over them—with which I dealt at Second Reading. I have in mind one in particular the threat of humiliating and degrading treatment—as well as some others.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be prepared to entertain discussions between now and the next stage of the Bill with a view to seeing whether, in any event, the Government might be prepared to give some form of satisfactory undertaking on this matter. Of course, such discussions would be without commitment. On that basis, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Request for arrest and surrender]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall refer also to the amendments grouped with it. As this is the first amendment to be moved from this side of the Chamber, perhaps the Committee will allow me to preface my remarks by making quite clear that, in dealing with the substantial number of amendments on the Marshalled List, we on this side welcome the aims of the Bill and are anxious to see it work effectively and efficiently and, indeed, to deal with the issues raised in the amendments as swiftly as we can.
We want to see the United States of America brought along in support of the Bill. However, from the very start our concerns, as raised in the amendments, including this one, are as follows. We should avoid a general criminalising of the use of force in international affairs; we should avoid unintended consequences, in particular that lesser offenders are brought to justice and the big offenders—the atrocitymongers—escape; we should avoid using the legislation as a political tool; and there should be protection for our Armed Forces and all servants of the state, including, indeed, politicians of all parties, against vexatious prosecution. We shall return to all those matters, but I preface the moving of the amendment with those remarks.
This group of amendments deals with requests to the Secretary of State for the surrender and arrest of accused persons. Our amendments seek to allow the Secretary of State the option, for whatever reason he thinks fit, not to initiate the sending of documents to a judicial officer, thereby maintaining the autonomy of the United Kingdom in international matters. This precise amendment under Clause 2 starts from the
1274
point that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. We believe that he should retain a residual discretion to refuse to activate a request for arrest and surrender. We believe that no harm will be done by that let-out.
I turn to the other amendments in the grouping. Amendment No. 4 gives the Secretary of State discretion in endorsing the warrant for execution in the United Kingdom where the request for arrest and surrender is accompanied by a warrant of arrest and the judicial officer is satisfied with it.
Amendment No. 6, which leaves out "shall" and inserts "may", obviously gives the appropriate judicial officer the discretion that arises from that change of wording. Amendment No. 7 simply seeks to ensure that any request as referred to in this statute and subsection shall be in the English language and that any request referred to in subsection (2) and in this statute shall be delivered to the Home Office and a second copy to the Attorney-General. This amendment will ensure that that is included in the statute simply for the avoidance of confusion. It is in that spirit of seeking reassurance that I tabled these first amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the general stance which he and the Opposition Front Bench have adopted.
I revert to the last remarks—I am sorry; I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has left the Chamber for a moment, but he will read Hansard. I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Scotland and I said earlier. We are, of course, more than happy to hold discussions with any Members of the Committee on any matter which troubles them. I am happy to repeat that for the purposes of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
I understand the point of the amendments, but if they were agreed to they would destroy the scheme of the statute. The Bill's purpose is to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the Rome Statute, but that statute does not make allowance for the discretion that the amendments offer. The statute makes it clear that states parties are expected to comply with requests for arrest and surrender. Clause 2 sets out the procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State. One needs to bear in mind the fact that Clause 2 deals with the duty on the Secretary of State, on receiving a request for arrest and surrender, to transmit the request and accompanying documents to the appropriate judicial officer. That is simply an obligation, not a discretion, to carry out that first step. The judicial officer then receives the request, and we should meet our obligations under the statute if the clause remains as it is currently drafted.
If discretion were introduced, nothing of value would be added to the Bill. The amendment would produce circumstances that were contrary to Article 89(1) of the statute, which provides that states parties "shall" comply with requests for arrest and surrender.

1275
It is not right for a Minister, for instance, to be able to decide to give no effect to such requests—that would be in breach of Article 89(1).
I cannot support Amendment No. 7, which is badly drafted. I realise that that is the classic departmental response, of which the noble Lord has had many more years of experience than I. However, that is not the best point to make in this context, so I put it to one side. The matter does not need to be specified in the Bill because, by virtue of Article 87 of the statute, a state party will, on ratification, designate the language in which any requests for co-operation will be provided by the ICC and the appropriate channel for the transmission of such requests. At that time, on ratification, we will make a designation that we will require requests from the ICC to be made in English and will specify the appropriate channel for such requests. We believe that the appropriate channel should be the Foreign and Commonwealth Office rather than the Home Office. It will be for the Foreign Office to pass on the request, as appropriate, to the Home Office, the Scottish Executive or any other relevant department. I assure Members of the Committee that that is the model we have used for meeting requests from the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which I recently visited, and that that model has worked well.
I hope that I have met the noble Lord's concerns in my response to his amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We on these Benches support the stance taken by the Government on this raft of amendments rather than that of the Conservative Opposition. I shall explain the underlying issues of principle in this context, which should add to the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
As a matter of principle, the philosophy on which the ICC is based, as we understand it, is that that court, as the specialist expert court, should in the ordinary way have prime responsibility, acting in partnership with national courts and national governments, for dealing with the serious offences that fall under its jurisdiction. This raft of amendments, apart from being inconsistent with the statute, would fetter or add restrictions to the role of the ICC and would give more responsibility to national courts and Ministers of the Crown in the exercise of what would be a very broad discretion. With respect and in relation to the philosophy that underlies the statute and the Bill, it does not seem to us that that approach is sensible. When we later debate whether our courts should exercise universal jurisdiction, we shall look at the complementarity principle to establish the extent to which national courts, as well as the ICC, can bear some responsibility in appropriate cases and deal with the important question of gaps.
The amendments would limit the role of the ICC, and they would do so in relation to arguments that are really based on national or state sovereignty and the role of national institutions. That seems to us to be inappropriate in relation to a court of this special
1276
character. Indeed, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who was one of the Law Lords in the Pinochet case, spoke on Second Reading, he emphasised the importance of giving as much authority as possible to the ICC rather than leaving national courts with the sort of dilemmas that arose in the Pinochet case. Without speaking to the amendments' particularity, to the extent that they would limit those principles, we oppose them.
Lord Monson: I want to put a question to the noble and learned Lord. Let us suppose—heaven forbid—that at some time in the future civil strife in this country led to large-scale killing, torture and the general maltreatment of individuals. A few years later, when law and order had been restored, the government of this country might decide not to prosecute those involved in such crimes but to establish a truth and reconciliation commission instead. Unless the amendments are agreed to today or at a future date, that, surely, would not be possible. If that government did not want to prosecute those people, they would have to allow others to initiate prosecutions. Would that be desirable if it were against the wishes of that British government?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Will the noble and learned Lord confirm—I hope that he can make this absolutely clear to us laymen—that the proposal is that the issuance of a warrant will be sufficient and that no prima facie evidence of any kind will be required? Will he further confirm, following the Pinochet case and in relation to the provisions of extradition law, whether the Government undertook to re-examine whether it was right that someone might be held in this country for a long period with no prima facie evidence being offered? Is that the position under the Bill?
Lord Avebury: Will the noble and learned Lord also kindly confirm, pursuant to what the noble Lord has just said, that the position is exactly the same as that which obtains in relation to the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which he mentioned? Is it not important that whatever we do in this context follows exactly the same procedures? Otherwise, one would be in the very anomalous situation of being obliged to arrest and deliver up an alleged offender to the tribunals, whereas, with regard to the amendment, one would not be so obliged in relation to an offender who was wanted to appear before the ICC. That situation would plainly be grossly unsatisfactory.
Lord Hylton: I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Monson but on this occasion I support the general thrust of his remarks. I do not doubt that the amendments in their current form are defective. Nevertheless, it is desirable that there should be just a little flexibility somewhere in the system so that, with regard to countries such as some of those in Central America and South Africa—and, conceivably, Northern Ireland in the future—there should be some

1277
ways and means of allowing a process of reconciliation to happen without necessarily applying the full rigour of the law.
Lord Kingsland: If I may respectfully say so, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, put his finger on the principle that lies behind the amendments. That principle will re-emerge time and again in the course of this Committee stage.
I should like to take a slightly different stance from that which the noble Lord has taken, at least on this occasion. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State is faced with a situation whereby the United Kingdom Government have taken the view, first, that there is sufficient evidence before them in the case of an individual to prosecute; secondly, they think it appropriate in all the circumstances to prosecute; and, thirdly, they have begun the process of prosecution. Let us suppose further that they are then faced with a request from the court to issue a warrant and transfer the person to The Hague. In those circumstances, surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have a discretion to continue the process in the United Kingdom and not to release the individual.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Those questions are dealt with by the discussions which we had on Second Reading. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and other noble Lords joined in that discussion which was fundamentally to underline the rationale behind this Bill and it is entirely based on the principle—I am sorry to sound vaguely European—of complementarity. A number of noble Lords stressed, and my noble friend Lady Scotland and I underlined, that this is a jurisdiction to be exercised where the domestic jurisdiction is not willing and able to investigate and prosecute.
If there has been a genuine investigation and prosecution or a genuine decision not to prosecute, then, of course, the ICC does not have the appropriate jurisdiction. But that is not the reason that one needs the discretion. If the statute requires us to carry out certain acts, then this amendment puts us immediately in breach of the statute, and the whole purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the statute, as I thought everyone who spoke on Second Reading agreed was a good thing.
I shall now deal with one or two other specific matters. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, asked about the Pinochet question. He rightly reminded us that there is a review of extradition law which was announced by the Home Secretary some time ago. But he will also recall very well the scheme of the Extradition Act, which I believe was introduced when he was a member of the government, and whether or not one needed prima facie evidence.
The statute says—I believe rightly—that when the request is made, the Secretary of State has an obligation to transmit that request to the judicial officer. If the United Kingdom is deciding—I take the
1278
question of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as an example—whether to prosecute and at that time, when the decision is being arrived at, one receives an ICC request, if one looks at Clause 5(4), one finds an answer to at least some of his questions.
If one looks at Clause 5(4), one sees there—and this goes back to the complementarity point which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, discussed on an earlier occasion on Second Reading—that in the case of a person alleged to have committed an ICC crime, the competent court may,
"adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome of any challenge before the ICC to the admissibility of the case or to the jurisdiction of the ICC".
So I do not believe that the issues which trouble the Committee are properly based, because that is the answer to the procedure at that stage.
In respect of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, civil strife is not a clear concept but if there were an investigation going on in the United Kingdom, that would be sufficient to halt the ICC proceedings. I do not believe that modern jurisprudence should recognise a cherry-picking approach to those matters. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is quite right: the criminal tribunals in respect of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the latter having been the tribunal where Mrs Biljana Playsic voluntarily surrendered—in fact I was there on the very day that she pleaded not guilty to the indictment—are important tribunals to deal with matters of fundamental human rights.
There is a gap in the law at the moment. I do not think anyone doubts that. One cannot have a discretion imported in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, suggested, or it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes, in those circumstances. The obligation is quite plain. It is not a discretion for the Secretary of State. If one wants to challenge the proceedings, Clause 5(4) provides the opportunity to make that challenge.
Lord Monson: The noble and learned Lord said that, in his opinion, states should not have the right to cherry-pick, and I see what he is getting at. But earlier he said that states do have the right, although I cannot find it in the Bill—perhaps it appears somewhere else—to decide not to prosecute after investigation. Will he reconcile those two concepts?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Frequently in my present occupation, police investigations are carried out and sometimes the evidential hurdle is not passed which is contained in the guidance to Crown Prosecution Service lawyers and on rare occasions it may be in the public interest not to prosecute and on other occasions the offence can be prosecuted only with my specific fiat or authority. So there are marginal cases where, even if the evidential hurdle is passed, then prosecutions would not be brought.
But my fundamental point remains this. I believe that we all agree that the international tribunal in Rwanda should take action against, allegedly, genocidal murder on a colossal scale—murder of

1279
hundreds of thousands of people—and that it is right to prosecute alleged war criminals from Yugoslavia. But one cannot then cherry-pick and say that because their skin is white or their nationality is British, they are not subject to the same rules of law.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for drawing the attention of the Committee to Clause 5(4). The noble and learned Lord could be forgiven for not recalling that I have tabled an amendment to that clause. In view of what he said, I would encourage him to accept it because my amendment enables the Secretary of State himself to go to the ICC and challenge the admissibility of the issue of the warrant.
It is not clear on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State would have the power to do that. I take it that it is implied by Clause 5(4) that the individual who is the subject of the warrant would be able to take that action but it is not stated in terms that the Secretary of State would equally be able to so act.
If the Minister were to agree that the Secretary of State could act in those circumstances, he would provide, if not the complete answer, then the answer to a very large extent to the observations made about the current amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 5(4) as a concept is capable of meeting the questions which have been raised. I shall return to the specific amendment in due time because otherwise we shall lose our way.
My point remains that there is the opportunity for challenge to the jurisdictional basis of the ICC. That is provided in Clause 5(4). When that challenge is made, the competent court—namely, the court in this jurisdiction—may adjourn and no further judicial step is taken in this country about surrender until the admissibility of the case or the ICC's jurisdiction has been determined.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether I may trouble the noble and learned Lord again in the light of his last answer to me because I cannot see any other obvious part of the Bill on which I can raise this point.
Let us suppose that a country—not this country because we would never do such a thing—elsewhere in the world decides, "We will prosecute someone for a crime (in order to get the ICC off its back) but, when convicted, we shall pass a derisory sentence or even have the president of the republic grant a general amnesty to all prisoners", and so on and so forth. Would the ICC have the right to say to such a country, "That is not good enough. You have passed a derisory sentence and let this man out after only six months. We demand that you re-prosecute the individual or turn him over to us"?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I want to reinforce the point. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord has said that the matter of amnesty was touched upon at Second Reading. Unfortunately I could not be present at Second Reading, for which I apologise. I do not
1280
want to make a Second Reading speech, although I am interested in the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. That is how the jurisdiction of the court may apply in relation to, for example, Northern Ireland, or to domestic reconciliation processes. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could speak to that point briefly.
On the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about a domestic court passing a derisory sentence, or one that a reasonable person may conclude was inadequate, I have seen an opinion expressed by an academic at Cornell University that the statutes of the court give it authority over how sentences are applied; for example, the ICC is permitted to overrule the decisions of national governments or national courts when sentences are too lenient, but not when they are too onerous. I have certainly seen that academic opinion expressed. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give the Committee his opinion on that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Part of the answer is found in Article 20 of the statute:
"l. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:
(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice".
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is nodding. To put it crudely, the framers of the statute were not born yesterday. I readily recognise that in some jurisdictions—I hope not ours—cosmetic proceedings may have been taken, simply with a view to shielding, to take the citation from the statute.
I believe that Article 20 deals with these matters that I recognise as important. If one has a dispute in relation to the consequences of Article 20—domestic prosecutions or activities in the criminal justice system—and if there is a dispute about whether it is a shield or not, under Clause 5(4) one has the opportunity for that to be the subject of an adjournment domestically and an application to the ICC itself.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am not surprised by the nature of the reply of the Attorney-General to these amendments. I do not suppose that he is surprised that I am not surprised! The purpose of this short debate has been to show the strength of the obligations from a higher jurisdiction that the Bill intentionally places upon us. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made it

1281
quite clear that that is the intention. They are strong obligations and they place constrictions that have been emphasised in this short debate. In view of the comments that have been made and the observations of the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall not transmit a request under subsection (I) if 40 years or more have elapsed since the date of the alleged offence.").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled Amendment No. 3 in the interests of achieving fair trials and preventing miscarriages of justice. In its effect this is a long-term amendment. I do not expect to be around 40 years after the International Criminal Court has come into active being. However, I have come into contact with too many victims of miscarriages of justice, so I believe that everything possible should be done to prevent such things happening.
As a layman, it seems to me that it is most unlikely that fair trials can be mounted 40 years after the event. Key witnesses will have died, often personal appearances will have changed almost out of recognition and memories will have become clouded or highly selective. In my view, some kind of statutory limitation is necessary beyond which it is not possible to bring charges. I admit that 40 years is an arbitrary figure and it may be that a shorter period would be preferable. I understand that Belgium has a limitation of 30 years even for the most serious crimes.
It is clear that in discussing the present Bill we cannot amend the statute of the International Criminal Court. However, I regret the rigidity of Article 29 and the possibly vindictive attitude of some NGOs that have supported it. The only options open to us are either to enter reservations to our ratification, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, or to restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to act on request, as in my amendment. Therefore, this amendment has a probing character. I look forward to hearing the reply from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was good enough to support me on an earlier amendment and I have pleasure in reciprocating by supporting this amendment, not only for the reasons that he has eloquently advanced, but also for other reasons. As I argued at the time of the War Crimes Bill, what on earth is the point of prosecuting people who are in their 70s or 80s—those in their 60s may be a borderline matter—for crimes that they may have committed when teenagers, caught up in the transient political passions of the moment? However serious those
1282
crimes, those people may have led perfectly blameless lives in the intervening 50 or 60 years. What is the point of prosecuting them?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I well understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but with great respect to him I believe that he is mistaken, as is the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
We do not have a statute of limitations in this country for the crime of murder. Someone who murders on a massive scale or who is guilty of torture is no more deserving of sympathy from the point of view of limitation than anyone else. The statute of the ICC deals with the problem in a sensible manner. Article 29 rules out an automatic statute of limitations, but Article 64 is one of several provisions that confers strong protection on the accused, stronger than is given in the express language of the European Convention on Human Rights and stronger than is given in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. One of the overriding objectives in Article 64, paragraph 2, is that the trial chamber must ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious and conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused.
From all the international human rights case law, it is quite clear that, where it is impossible to conduct a fair trial because witnesses have forgotten facts and the events are so stale, the trial chamber or court will stay the proceedings just as they will in this country or in any other country that respects the rule of law. Therefore, the International Criminal Court is given a very wide discretion. In addition, there are very stringent obligations on the independent prosecutor to ensure that the rights of the accused are respected. We should take that into account. That seems to me the right way of dealing with it—not to have an arbitrary 20-year limitation period, which we do not have in our own legal system for very serious offences, but to leave it to the trial judge and the prosecutor to exercise their discretion on the basis of proper legal principles. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lester, sits down, will he agree that a person of, say, 78, is a totally different person in every way from that same person at the age of 18?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with that. However, some crimes are committed in extreme circumstances. To make it a little less prejudicial than the way it is put, if someone between the age of 25 and 30 commits mass murder, the crime of genocide, and is exposed 30 years later at the age of 50 or 60, under the statutory limitation, prosecution would automatically be ruled out. That would not accord with the purposes of the International Criminal Court or the general law relating to humanity and war crimes. The discretion has to be built in. The discretion is not about forgiveness. It is about whether there can be a fair trial.
Lord Avebury: The crime of genocide and crimes committed in grave breach of the Geneva conventions

1283
are already subject to no limitation. It surely would be an anomaly to insert into this Bill a limitation which would then automatically apply to the crimes deemed to be so serious that there should be no limitation on them.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to consider another argument. Technological advances in the field of forensic evidence may make it possible for an offence to be brought to court years after the event. We have experienced that in our own domestic courts. The remarkable technological advances relating to DNA matching have enabled us to bring murderers to justice years—perhaps not as many as 40—after the crimes had been committed. One recent case was brought to trial well over 20 years after the commission of the offence. We do not know what technological advances might be made in the future, enabling us to bring to trial people who may be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court under these provisions. For that reason, it surely would be unwise to fetter the jurisdiction in the way suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is a fundamental difference of approach here. First, this is not retrospective jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is therefore quite right on one basis, although he is quite wrong in the proposition that he will not be here in 40 years' time to scrutinise the working of this legislation. So his amendment—and this must be a first, even in your Lordships' House—would only come into effect 40 years from now.
I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Lester. Our jurisprudence does not normally operate on the basis of a statute of limitations. Hitler was not an old man between 1933 and 1939; nor was Stalin, at the height of his crimes; nor was an extremely young officer in the German armed forces named Eichmann; nor was Beria very young. All I can do is quote, and then modify, what Senator Irvine said in the Nixon hearings: "God is not mocked". I say that justice should not he mocked by the passage of time.
Lord Hylton: I appear to have started a hare, and perhaps, from a layman's point of view, quite a good hare. I shall certainly reflect on what has been said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 11, after ("demonstrate") insert ("beyond reasonable doubt").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns Clause 2(4) of the Bill. It deals with a situation in which an individual has been convicted by the International Criminal Court but the subsequent request for his arrest and surrender is not accompanied by a warrant of arrest. The Bill stipulates that if, nevertheless, the request is accompanied by a copy of the judgment of conviction, information to demonstrate that the
1284
person sought is the one referred to in the judgment, and a copy of the sentence imposed, the responsible judicial officer shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the person to whom the request relates. This amendment relates to that part of the clause concerning the information to demonstrate that the person sought is the one referred to in the judgment.
In our submission, a high standard of proof should be required before the judicial officer issues the warrant. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will agree that it is very important for the courts to make sure that the right person is surrendered. In my view, it is highly desirable that, in those circumstances, the standard of proof should he "beyond reasonable doubt". I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not willing to accept this amendment. Clause 2(4)(b) and 2(4)(c) reflect the wording of the statute. The amendment to Clause 2(4)(b) precisely follows the wording of Article 91(3)(e) of the statute. If the request were made, a copy of the judgment of conviction provided and information to demonstrate that the person sought was the one referred to, the point about identity would be taken in the court itself. First, I submit that since we are putting the statute into effect in this Bill, it is right to do it in this way. Secondly, there is nothing inconsistent with the normal judicial pattern in extradition hearings.
We have had experience, fortunately not too recently, of rather tendentious arguments about technical points. My view is that the proper way in which to proceed is to provide the safeguards in the statute and that ultimately, if it is suggested by a convicted person that he is wrongly held in custody, it should be for the trial court to determine that issue.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. It is clear that the International Criminal Court knows who the right person is. The problem faced by our courts is making sure that the person before them is the right one. There must be some standard required of the court in those circumstances. If the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to accept "beyond reasonable doubt", would he be prepared to accept "more likely than not"? If he is not prepared to accept "more likely than not", it would mean that, even where the court was less than 50 per cent certain that the person in front of it was the right person, somebody might find themselves on their way.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The difficulty with that approach is that if the single issue before the ICC is identification—for example, that was the question before the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Demjanjuk—that matter will be relitigated at an inappropriate stage. I believe that here there is every safeguard at the early stages. To paraphrase the position, this is merely a request for the surrender of a convicted person to the jurisdiction of the ICC. If it is to be said that the wrong person has been arrested, that

1285
point should be made in the convicting court, not as a preliminary issue to be decided beyond reasonable doubt.
If the present drafting of the Bill requires that matter to be demonstrated, then it must be more likely than not for the demonstration to have occurred. If it is less likely it has not been demonstrated. I do not prejudge the decisions of courts, but I believe that that follows. Let us assume that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I sat in court and heard an application to demonstrate something. If either of us concluded it was very unlikely that that was right, we would not have satisfied ourselves judicially that the matter had been demonstrated.
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord answers my point and goes some way to meet the problem that I pose. In his view it would be absurd if a court did not satisfy itself, at least on the balance of probabilities, that the individual before it was the individual described.
Perhaps I may assist the noble and learned Lord in this dilemma so that he does not face it in future debates in Committee. The noble and learned Lord referred on several occasions to the statute. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the correct approach to the interpretation of the statute is a purposive one and that it would be wrong to become simply a prisoner of the text? If so, surely in considering the Rome statute he should apply the same interpretative approach as he would apply to our own statutory law.
In the context of the Human Rights Act, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will go further and say that his approach to the statute is on the basis of Section 3(1) of that Act. I cannot judge whether the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General would be prepared to go that far. However, as the noble and learned Lord recognises, it is commonsense that a court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. I would have preferred him to go further and accept the text of the amendment which requires that the court be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. For present purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I should like to raise three points on Clause 2. First, can the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee what details must be satisfied as regards the warrant? Subsection (3) provides:
"If the request is accompanied by a warrant of arrest and the appropriate judicial officer is satisfied that the warrant appears to have been issued by the ICC".
I assume that there are some other criteria which the warrant must satisfy and it is not sufficient merely that it is a document issued by the court. Presumably, that document must be drawn up according to certain rules.
1286
My reason for raising this matter is prompted by an issue which arose in the case of General Pinochet. The noble and learned Lord will recall that in that case the Lord Chief Justice held that the arrest warrant was not a good one. Subsequently when that document was referred to as a defective warrant the noble and learned Lord was quick to say, no doubt correctly, that it was far from being defective but none the less it was not good. I should like the noble and learned Lord to tell the Committee what criteria the warrant must meet other than simply that it is issued by the ICC.
My second point is a more general one. The noble and learned Lord has rejected the amendments tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench and referred to the demands of the statute and, therefore, the need for automaticity. That is all very well, and I follow the logic of it. However, perhaps to anticipate a point to which the Committee will turn later, Clause 65 is concerned with the doctrine of command responsibility. Whether the commander of certain forces really has control over the behaviour of his troops is a very subjective matter. Some jurists have been very critical of a number of the judgments that have been made, particularly as regards people convicted in the Far East after the Second World War. I am also aware that a number of eminent American jurists have been extremely critical of the way in which that command responsibility was applied after the Second World War. Therefore, I believe that the points made by my noble friend on the Front Bench must be looked at in the context of command responsibility, which can be very subjective.
Thirdly, I should like to repeat the point that I put to the noble and learned Lord in relation to the amendments. The noble and learned Lord had many points to answer but he did not manage to deal with that question or the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. How will these provisions apply when a national government wishes to have a domestic amnesty? How will they apply in the case of Northern Ireland when sometimes political decisions are made about the most horrendous crimes committed on our own soil?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps in responding the noble and learned Lord can confirm that my understanding of the position in relation to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is correct. In Clause 2—request for arrest and surrender—subsection (3) provides that the judicial officer must be satisfied, according to normal principles of English administrative law, that the warrant appears to have been issued by the ICC and endorse it for execution. When one reads that provision together with Clause 5(2)(b), the competent court—the UK court—must be satisfied,
"that the person brought before the court is the person named or described in the warrant".
According to my understanding of English law, that means that the court must be satisfied on the basis of proper material.
If one ties that in with the ICC statute just to see how

1287
full the safeguards are, Article 59(2), which deals with arrest proceedings in the custodial state, provides:
"A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that State"—
that is to say, the normal English principles of public law—
that,
(a) The warrant applies to that person"—
that must he decided to the appropriate standard on the basis of proper evidence—
(b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and
(c) The person's rights have been respected".
If my understanding is correct—I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can confirm it or otherwise—it appears that there are adequate safeguards against any abuse or miscarriage that may arise both under the statute and the statute read together with Clause 2 of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I have one additional point only to add to what the noble Lord has said about the contents of the warrant. That is the provision of Article 91, paragraph 2(c), of the statute where it states that the documents must contain,
"such information as may be necessary to meet the requirements for the surrender process in the requested State".
It goes on to provide that,
"those requirements should not be more burdensome than those applicable to requests for extradition"
in the normal course of extradition proceedings. Therefore, the warrants supplied by the International Criminal Court have to be at least on all fours with those which are provided for extradition under treaties in force that we have signed with other states.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, really asked questions with three aspects. The first related to the technical quality of the warrant document. I believe that he will find the answer to that question at paragraph 5 to Schedule 1 to the Bill. That states:
"An order, judgment, warrant or request of the ICC which purports—

to bear the seal of the ICC, or

to be signed by a person in his capacity"—

then I omit some words because they are on the face of the Bill. That is not dissimilar to—I say I hope by way of assistance—the kind of scheme that we adopted successfully some years ago; the backing of warrants regime with the Republic of Ireland. So I hope that that deals with his technical question on the nature of the warrant.
The second question he raised related to command responsibility. Since Nuremberg—about which I know there are differing views—the principle of command responsibility is well-developed in international law. I do not think that it is subjective; it is perfectly simple. Indeed, if one had domestic proceedings in this country and a commanding officer in the Armed Forces gave an unlawful order which was
1288
then carried out resulting in death, both the soldier and the person who gave the unlawful order are liable to be tried for murder. It is not a difficult concept; it is a question of proof in particular circumstances.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, is that really what "command responsibility" means? I know we shall debate this issue later, but my understanding is that command responsibility might be held to apply even though there is no actual concrete evidence that a general or a commanding officer had actually issued any such orders. The case that I referred to—I am afraid I do not have the details here but I intend to refer to it when we come to the relevant clause—related to a Japanese general who was executed in the Philippines. A good many people were critical that there was no evidence, but none the less command responsibility was alleged to apply to him simply by merit of his rank and the bad behaviour of his troops. No one questioned that the troops behaved badly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is probably right that we should deal with the matter in its appropriate place. But I do not think there is a difficulty about proof of command responsibility. It may be proved directly in the illustration I gave; it may be proved structurally. But that is a matter of whether the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the charge has been made out. However, as the noble Lord said, we shall refer to this matter later.
The noble Lord returned to the question of amnesty. These are crimes of the gravest kind. It is extremely unlikely that an amnesty could legitimately he given. But the answer to the question is that the ICC prosecutor has discretion not to institute a prosecution in the interests of justice. That might be appropriate where a fair and democratically supported amnesty had been proclaimed, but not where it was a purely bogus or cosmetic amnesty for illegitimate purpose.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Request for provisional arrest]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("instruct") and insert ("request").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 concerns a Scottish matter. It arises under Clause 3(3). There is a view that Scottish Ministers should refer the application for a provisional arrest warrant to the procurator fiscal for his or her consideration. It should then be a matter for the procurator fiscal to determine whether the criteria for justifying such a warrant have been met and whether the application should be submitted.
As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is aware, in the Bill as currently drafted, the procurator fiscal would have no discretion to decide whether an application is appropriate. That would represent a

1289
significant departure from the procedure of applying for warrants in other criminal cases. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is back to the earlier discussion between "shall" and "may" but is put slightly differently because of the different context of "instruct" and "request". My stance remains the same. What is provided here is a similar scheme; namely, if it appears to the Secretary of State that an application for a warrant should be made in Scotland,
"he shall transmit the request to the Scottish Ministers who shall instruct the procurator fiscal",
but simply to take the step of application for a warrant for the arrest of that person. It seems to me that there is no difference in the scheme, apart from the wording, to that which Members of the Committee have already agreed.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his reply, which did not in any way surprise me. Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State has a wider discretion than under Clause 2, because in Clause 3(2) there is the expression:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that application for a warrant should be made in England and Wales".
If I may respectfully help the noble and learned Lord, I hope not for the only occasion in the course of the Committee stage, that seems to be a proper distinction to draw between the circumstances of Clause 3 and the circumstances of Clause 2. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No.11:
Page 2, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment of Scottish provenance. The amendment seeks to ensure that before an application for a provisional arrest warrant is made in Scotland, the procurator fiscal must be satisfied that the request has been made by the International Criminal Court on grounds of urgency and that the person is either in Scotland or on his way to Scotland.
We believe it is generally agreed that it is necessary to ensure that there is some degree of scrutiny given to requests for provisional arrest warrants before an application is made. This should ensure that the conduct will be proportional to the desired outcome. I am advised that the Bill as currently drafted makes provision for a constable in England and Wales to consider these issues before making an application for a warrant. The amendment will ensure that the position in Scotland is similar to that in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am the man in the Bateman cartoon. I believe the noble Lord is right in respect of Amendments No. 11 and 12. I am happy to accept them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 40, at beginning insert—
("if the procurator fiscal is satisfied—
(i) that a request has been made on grounds of urgency by the ICC for the arrest of a person, and
(ii) that the person is in, or on his way to Scotland,
the procurator fiscal shall make an application for a warrant to an appropriate judicial officer and that officer").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Dealing with person arrested under provisional warrant]:
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 2, after ("court") insert ("or courts-martial in the case of service personnel").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4 deals with a person arrested under warrant. The person arrested under a provisional warrant is required to be brought before a court as soon as possible. That is established law in criminal matters generally. Clause 4 appears to make no allowance for service personnel who would otherwise be brought before a civilian court under the Bill as it stands.
The amendment seeks to ensure that service personnel are brought before a courts martial, a court of the type with which they are familiar. It seems to us right that military personnel do appear before a courts martial as civil courts might not be best placed to understand many complex issues in the circumstances in which some of these horrific crimes are alleged to have occurred. These are often circumstances of war or of high complexity and difficulty, where a courts martial is the proper way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendment No. 14 relates to provisional warrants under Clause 4 of the Bill. It proceeds on an incorrect understanding of the relationship between courts martial and standing courts. Courts martial are not standing courts; they are ad hoc courts that come into existence for particular cases. There is no role for a court martial in delivery proceedings any more than service personnel would go to a court martial for extradition proceedings. The analogy is a good one. The court martial deals with certain offences committed by military personnel, but not all. The only point of Clause 4 is to deal with those who are arrested under provisional warrants, so there is no role for the court martial. Military personnel would have their interests safeguarded in the same way as any other accused person arrested under provisional warrant; namely, in the usual courts.
Earl Attlee: I must inform the Committee that I have an interest. I am a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I might be caught by the Bill if I misbehaved myself; but I hope that that would never happen. Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General say what will happen if the ICC wants to prosecute someone currently serving in HM Armed Forces

1291
overseas where there is no convenient court to attend, but where it would be possible to convene a court martial very quickly?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is possible to convene a court martial very quickly. They are not standing courts for the purposes of dealing with provisional warrants any more than they are standing courts for dealing with extradition proceedings. That is the true answer to the question. There is no difficulty these days in getting someone back from Germany, Cyprus or wherever to be dealt with in the court at Bow Street in the usual way.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I confess that I am not entirely happy with the noble and learned Lord's reply. The analogy with extradition seems to be not quite the right one. As I understand it, the whole point of the Bill is to avoid the complexities and delays inherent in the extradition process in order that in the wider world monsters and barbarous perpetrators of crimes can be swiftly obtained and brought before the International Criminal Court. To say that military personnel would be as protected as they are in extradition proceedings cannot be right. They are not as protected because the ICC—through the complementarity process and through the obligations that we are laying on ourselves by giving powers to this higher jurisdiction—has the power to investigate, unless the state party says that it is already investigating, and to seek to charge or issue a warrant against an individual member of the Armed Forces. That is where much of the worry lies, as I am sure will be familiar to the noble and learned Lord.
There seems to be a considerable volume of worry in this country, and more so in the United States of America, about the vulnerability and openness of service personnel to investigations and possible charges which may arise from other people's and other countries' definitions of what are war crimes which may not be our definitions. They may be definitions with which we are not prepared to deal in a court, or which a court martial would be able to identify as vexatious from the start.
The reply leaves a kind of pall of unease over service personnel.
Lord Avebury: Can the noble Lord explain what he means by other countries' definitions of war crimes? Is there not only one definition of war crimes? That is the one contained in the statute.
Lord Howell of Guildford: This may be why the Republic of France has put down a declaration on the face of the ratification status about military objectives. The difficulty arises when one comes to define a military objective and whether an act which is regarded as a war crime by those who experience and suffer it—bombarding a village in war and killing civilians—but not by those who carried out the bombardment is a war crime. This is where the difficulty arises. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. The definition of war crimes is there. But the difficulty begins when we include it in our national
1292
legislation and bring in this higher jurisdiction which we want to aim at the right targets We will not get far by dismissing the difficulty that exists. It is our duty to try to clarify it.
This is a matter that we would wish to pursue at Report stage. In view of the position taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. l5:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("as soon as is practicable") and insert ("not later than the first day after the person has been taken into custody, such day not being a Saturday, Sunday or court holiday").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 15 concerns the words "as soon as is practicable" in Clause 4(1). Our amendment ensures that a person arrested under a provisional warrant is brought before a competent court on the next lawful day after arrest.
Section 105(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that a person arrested under a warrant, or by virtue of powers of any enactment or rule of law, shall, wherever practicable, be brought before a competent court not later than the first day after being taken into custody, such day not being a Saturday, Sunday or holiday. This rule applies in Scotland in the most serious cases, such as murder and rape. We can see no reason for departing from this general rule, even in the case of this Bill. This amendment would avoid the difficulties of deciding whether the person was brought before a competent court as soon as was practicable having regard to the circumstances of each case.
I turn to Amendment No. 16. It is our view that there is no justification for a remand in custody on presentation at court if a provisional warrant cannot then be produced. Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 are intended to avoid a situation where there is an indefinite remand in the absence of the production of a warrant.
Finally, Amendment No. 20 seeks to insert into Clause 4 the words:
"Where a person has been discharged under this section. he shall not be arrested under a subsequent section 2 warrant unless the court is satisfied that such an arrest is not oppressive".
Clause 4(7) allows for a person discharged under Clause 4 to be arrested again under a Clause 2 warrant. By leaving out Clause 4(7) and inserting the amendment, the person will not be arrested again, thus stopping a witch-hunt against that person and avoiding what would otherwise appear to be his persecution. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord said, the amendments all relate to the question of provisional warrants. Perhaps I may deal first with the suggested time-limits. I do not believe that time-limits of this nature are the most effective course. Provisional warrants may be issued for very dangerous and elusive

1293
subjects. In this category of crime, we should not run the risk that they will simply walk free on a technicality.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed and I assure the Committee that every effort will be made to bring those arrested on a provisional warrant before a competent court as soon as is possible in the circumstances. Indeed, the equivalent provisions in the Extradition Act have not given rise to any problems.
Perhaps I may now deal with the amendments relating to remand and bail, as set out in Clause 4. The noble Lord proposes an amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 4 which would ensure that all those arrested under a provisional warrant would be given unconditional bail. That is related to a proposed amendment to Clause 16, to which we shall come in due time, making remand on bail applicable only in England and Wales. I understand the intention but I do not believe that we ought to alter the Bill in that way. I repeat that those who would be applying for bail would be linked to some of the gravest crimes known. I do not believe that we should ever consider unconditional bail in those circumstances. My understanding is that the course suggested in the amendment would be contrary to Article 59 of the statute. That is why Clauses 16 to 18 are important. They provide clear criteria for the granting of bail.
Finally, I should like to turn to the length of time that a person may spend on remand. The Bill as drafted allows for the incorporation of the ICC rules of evidence and procedure on this matter. The rules, which will be finalised at the first Assembly of States Parties, are currently drafted to allow for a 60-day maximum period on remand, after arrest on a provisional warrant. Amendments have been tabled which would take away our ability to incorporate those rules on time limits and also ensure that there is no extension of a period on remand.
An alternative time limit of seven days has been suggested. However, I believe that we should adopt the same standards as the ICC. The total period of remand for 60 days pending receipt of the full request is consistent broadly with the 40 to 60-day periods that apply in extradition cases. That will give the ICC time to assemble the appropriate documentation, while ensuring that a person will not be held unjustifiably.
The noble Lord also proposes an amendment to subsection (7). That would prohibit the re-arrest of someone discharged if that arrest is "oppressive". I am not sure how one is able to define that in all the circumstances. The amendment would interfere with our ability to meet our obligations. If a Clause 2 warrant is issued, we should do everything we can to assist in the execution of that request.
I take the point underlying what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. It would not be right to harry people unnecessarily. But a 60-day period is not unreasonable if one thinks of the general context of criminal proceedings in this country in cases of serious charges. I stress that the rules will be important. If the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, still feels unhappy, I
1294
hope that he will take up my offer of a meeting. I am perfectly happy to discuss these matters with him. They are quite fine matters—sometimes matters of fine detail. In all the circumstances, I hope that he will not press the amendment at this stage.
Earl Attlee: When we are negotiating the rules and procedures, what kind of negotiating clout does the noble and learned Lord enjoy? Does he have a veto, or does majority voting apply?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is a great sadness to me that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is not sitting behind the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on this occasion. It is not a question of majority voting. I anticipate that a consensus will emerge. My guess is that 60 days will be about the period—in exactly the same way that one hascustody limits in Scotland and custody limits in England and Wales in serious cases. They tend to work quite well. One needs a decent balance between the legitimate public interest in successful prosecution and the legitimate individual interest that someone is not kept unduly long in a state of limbo.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. He will not be surprised to hear that I am by no means entirely satisfied with his responses. Nevertheless, he has generously suggested that it is a matter that he might like to take up between Committee and Report stage. In those circumstances, it would be churlish of me to press the matter today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Proceedings for delivery order]:
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 28, after ("court") insert (", or courts-martial in the case of service personnel,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21 is similar in kind to Amendment No. 14. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord's response to it will be similar. We are dealing here with persons arrested under warrant. The clause provides for the person to be held on remand pending the production of a warrant. As the clause stands, where no warrant is forthcoming, a civilian court issues a remand pending the production of such a warrant. The amendment is directed at service personnel. It seems to us unfair that the court martial should not be the route for such persons, as that is the best place—I fully accept that a court martial is not a permanent structure—to deal with a particular matter arising from an investigation, charge, warrant and so on—the entire procedure as instigated by the International Criminal Court.
The amendment ensures that service personnel are protected by appearing before a court martial, which would understand the issues best. I emphasise that I am dealing here with procedures. I was tempted by the

1295
question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to get into the matter of crimes and their definition, which of course we shall be discussing later on.
Lord Goodhart: With respect to the noble Lord, will he explain what the issues are? If the issues are as they seem to me to be—only those which are specified in Clause 5(2)—I see no reason why a court martial should be in any sense a more suitable court to decide them than an ordinary court. If the noble Lord is suggesting that the court martial is a suitable court because it would be able to look into the merits of the matter, then is he not raising issues which go entirely against the pattern of the Rome statute?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: No, I am dealing with procedures here as they affect service personnel. I suggest that, in the case of service personnel, the kind of procedure outlined in this amendment would help to provide one of the assurances which needs to be given—if we are to have an effective court—to those in our armed services who have expressed fears which I should like to see laid to rest; namely, that such personnel may become the targets of vexatious, politically motivated or score settling charges instigated by the views of others who may have strong reasons for believing that certain crimes are war crimes. This amendment attempts in part to meet those concerns. I believe that this is a genuine attempt to reach a resolution of this problem. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has based this amendment on a total misconception of what happens at this stage in the proceedings. The ingredients of the offence will not be examined by the competent court. All that it has to do is to satisfy itself that the warrant is one that has been produced by the ICC, that has been duly issued under Clause 2(4) and that the person brought before the court is the person named or described in the warrant.
The issue to which the noble Lord refers—namely, whether a particular event should be classed as a war crime—is something which would not come into the picture. At that stage the competent court would not have to examine that issue. That is reserved for the International Criminal Court when the individual who is the subject of the warrant ultimately appears before that court. At this stage the issue is one purely of procedure; namely, whether the requirements specified in Clause 2(4) have been complied with fully. I cannot see the merit of the noble Lord's argument.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised this question and I join with him in his wish to lay to rest any fears which are not justified. The way to do that is to progress along the route suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Avebury; namely, to focus on the text and the context that is relevant here.
1296
The amendment seeks to insert after "a competent court" the words,
"or courts-martial in the case of service personnel".
This would give service personnel a different venue. A "competent court" is defined designedly in Clause 26 on page 14 of the Bill. A "competent court" means a court consisting of an appropriate judicial officer. That would be the senior district judge, whom we always used to refer to as the "chief stipendiary at Bow Street" or a district judge—formerly a stipendiary—designated by the Lord Chancellor or, north of the Border, the sheriff of Lothian and the Borders. Those courts comprise the "competent court".
The noble Lords were right to point out that on this occasion all the court has to do, according to the provisions of Clause 5(2), is to satisfy itself,
"(a) that the warrant—

(i) is a warrant of the ICC and has been duly endorsed under section 2(3), or

(ii) has been duly issued under section 2(4), and

(b) that the person brought before the court is the person named or described in the warrant,
it shall make a delivery order".
That is a very limited function indeed.
As regards the identity of the defendant, I shall say quite carefully that that is not relevant in this particular context. It would not matter if he was a field marshal or a police constable. Both are serving in disciplined services. The police officer would probably be dealt with at Bow Street, while the sergeant-major, major or major-general would also be dealt with in the same tribunal but only on the limited basis set out in Clause 5(2). Courts martial do not even exist until a convening order has been signed. One would not want a court martial to be convened on an order simply to deal with such limited matters.
I hope that this has been helpful. If fears have been expressed, then I entirely accept them. I hope that I have been able to lay those fears to rest. The jurisdiction of the competent court is limited in the extreme here. It would not be entitled to go into the wider issues that the noble Lord had in mind.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I see that, under the Bill as drafted, the delivery court will operate on tramlines, within an extremely limited range. It is required to satisfy itself on only a limited number of matters set out in Clause 5(2). For that reason, I accept the point made by the noble and learned Lord. A court martial called together for the purpose could not do anything different.
There remains, however, the serving man's and serving woman's perspective, which we should respect. If they were to be caught up in these processes in a manner where there was room for doubt—we cannot always assume clarity in such circumstances—they would expect to appear before military courts at all stages of the process. That expectation will not be met in this case. It may be that the expectation is naïve, given that the court cannot do very much. Nevertheless, the expectation is there and I believe that we must move gingerly and carefully before

1297
discounting it and pushing it to one side. However, I accept the force of the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord in the context of this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("as soon as is practicable") and insert ("not later than the first day after the person has been taken into custody, such day not being a Saturday, Sunday or court holiday").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 22 and to endeavour to speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 25 to 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 35.
Noble Lords will see at a glance that the text of Amendment No. 22 is identical to the text of Amendment No. 15. I have already spoken to that amendment and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has already replied to it. For that reason, I have no need to repeat what I have said and I do not think that he will need to repeat his words either. The point has been taken and we shall await the Report stage.
In a sense, Amendment No. 23 deals with a similar issue. In our view, there is no justification for detention other than within a fixed time period. The noble and learned Lord adverted at least in part to that general point in his previous reply.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 25 to 28, the issue here is that in the event of a challenge, what justification can be put forward for remanding a defendant in custody for an indefinite period? Perhaps I may pause at this point and ask a question of the noble and learned Lord. I believe that one of these amendments has been declared inadmissible. Am I right in thinking that it is Amendment No. 30?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that it is Amendment No. 30A.
Lord Kingsland: That is one of my amendments. As regards Amendment No. 30, we submit that the present text cannot be compatible with rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998. The statute does not specify which rights must be respected. It does not say what would happen if a domestic court determines a violation of Clause 5(b) or (c). It then follows that, even if a warrant for arrest is irregular, wrong in law or factually flawed, the United Kingdom Government would not be able to do anything about those breaches other than to surrender the suspect. In those circumstances, for example, a British citizen who is a member of the Armed Forces will have no rights.
1298
As to Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 35, again the point is that the rights of the citizen should be clearly set out in the legislation and properly defined in the Act. That does not appear to be the case. I beg to move.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I support my honourable friend on Amendment No. 30.
A noble Lord: Your noble friend.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My noble friend. We must get these things right, must we not? We must not concentrate on the substance; we must concentrate on the form. That is the important thing in this House, to concentrate on the form.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We can do both.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: We can do both, but that is beyond some of us.
I support Amendment No. 30, which seeks to leave out subsections (5) and (6). It seems to me a somewhat strange provision that, under Article 59.4, it is not open to a domestic court to consider whether the warrant of arrest was properly issued by the International Criminal Court. This means, presumably, that the International Criminal Court alone can judge whether the warrant that it issued is valid. One may have doubts about whether this will be impartially applied—because of the eagerness of the court to demonstrate success; the eagerness of the court to have a trial; the eagerness of the court to satisfy political pride—and it would surely be better if another court was able at least to give a preliminary judgment as to whether the warrant had been properly issued. It seems unsatisfactory that the court which issued the warrant should decide whether the warrant was properly issued.
For that slightly different reason I am concerned about this provision. I support the line taken by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may say a few words about how I understand the matter. What I say now will, in a way, presage what I shall say later on Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 59 and 60, which concern habeas corpus and judicial review.
My understanding is that the provision works in this way. Under Article 59.2 of the ICC statute,
"A person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial State which shall determine, in accordance with the law of that state"—
that is, English law—
"that

"(a) The warrant applies to that person:

"(b) The person has been arrested in accordance with the proper process; and

"(c) The person's rights have been respected".

That is translated into English law, as it were, at two stages in the Bill. First, the judicial officer under Clause 2, which we have debated, has to be satisfied of a number of matters. Under Clause 5(6)(b), the

1299
competent court has to be satisfied that the person's rights have been respected. If the competent English court decides that the person's rights have not been respected, it notifies the Minister and the Minister has to transmit that notification to the ICC.
So there is built into these procedures the notion that the English court determines whether rights have been respected as a matter of English law—which, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, includes the Human Rights Act 1998, and, therefore, the European Convention on Human Rights. When the English court has made that decision, the matter is transferred to the International Criminal Court, which has the ultimate responsibility for deciding what is to be done about it. That court is, of course, bound by international human rights law in all kinds of ways under the relevant chapter of the ICC statute.
The only gap that I can see in this partnership is purely technical and procedural—I shall come to it later—and concerns the limited remedy of the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which I think does not go far enough. That is how I understand the position. I shall now probably be told that I am wrong by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: These amendments fall into two categories. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, generously said that, in respect of most of them, we have gone over the ground because they are consequential. The issue focuses essentially on Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, a theme also developed by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
We must bear in mind—I am sorry to repeat this—that the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the statute. The noble Lord was quite right to draw our attention to Article 59.4 of the statute. It states, quite unambiguously, in the final paragraph:
"It shall not be open to the competent authority"—
which we looked at earlier in the context of the Bill—
"of the custodial State to consider whether the warrant of arrest was properly issued in accordance with article 58, paragraph 1(a) and (b)".
So we are in agreement about what consequences follow. There may be disagreement about whether or not it is a good idea to have the Bill, but we are in agreement about consequence.
Clause 5 is designed to implement Article 59. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is right, Article 59 requires the competent court—that is, the domestic court—to determine whether the rights of a person arrested have been respected. What it does not do is specify what should be the consequence of a determination that a person's rights have not been respected. That is the gap in the statute which the noble Lord identified.
We have therefore introduced the safeguard that if the competent court comes to the conclusion that there was not a lawful arrest in pursuance of the warrant, or if there was a non-respecting of the person's rights, the court is obliged to notify the Secretary of State. Having received that notification, the Secretary of State is obliged to transmit it to the ICC.
1300
There is a good reason for that. It would be quite easy for a state unwilling, for ignoble purpose, to surrender a particular individual, simply to violate his rights or secure a compliant court to make such a determination. We think, as a matter of principle, that it is right that the competent domestic court should have that duty; that it is right, as a matter of principle, that the Secretary of State should have the consequent duty. Thereafter it is a matter for the ICC to decide, on the usual grounds, whether the abuse of process is so grave that to proceed with a trial would go against the interests of justice.
That is a perfect mirror, I submit, of what obtains domestically now. If I say "My rights have been interfered with. There has been an undue delay. I cannot have a fair trial", then commonly now—I almost said regularly, but certainly frequently—domestic courts, the Crown Court, will say "To continue with this prosecution is abusive because it is against the interests of justice. Your rights have been interfered with". But it is the trial court—or potentially the trial court—which comes to that conclusion.
I know that some Members of the Committee may not be full of enthusiasm for some international courts, but in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda—to take up an earlier theme—there was every pressure to secure convictions. It was found that the abuse of process was so grave in the Barayagwiza case that it was decided that it would not be right to continue. There is the alternative under Article 85: the ICC can award compensation to persons subject to unlawful arrest or detention. Similarly, domestic remedies remain available. If an official has been responsible for a serious violation of a person's rights, he may be open to criminal prosecution, or indeed there may be a right to damages.
It is a difficult balance. There is no doubt that we are in new waters. However, if one rationalises the situation in that way, the true venue for determining abuse of process, which is what this would be, is the trial court. I believe that the ICC will be fair and that it will be competent to come to those conclusions. I have spent a little time on this because it is a legitimate question; and, following the gracious invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I have spent no time at all on the earlier matters which we have already gone over.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I accept in part what he says, because in a sense it is ground that he has already gone over. I should like to reflect on his reaction to what my noble friend Lord Lamont said in support of my opening remarks. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert (", and
(c) that there is a prima facie case, on the evidence to be heard,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add a new paragraph, (c), to Clause 5(2) requiring the competent court to be satisfied, in addition,
"that there is a prima facie case, on the evidence to be heard".
In the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said in response to previous amendments, I shall not press this matter. My reason is twofold. First, I know what the noble and learned Lord's answer will be. Secondly, two amendments in the next grouping, Amendments Nos. 24A and 28A, provide an alternative way of achieving the solution that we seek under this amendment. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I shall wait until I deal with the next group of amendments to raise the substance of the issue that I sought to raise in this one.
As to the remaining amendments, I am in difficulty over both Amendment No. 30B and Amendment No. 32A in view of the fact that Amendment No. 30A has been declared inadmissible. Therefore, I shall not move them.
As to Amendment No. 35A, it covers a great deal of the ground that was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his previous intervention. It seeks to require that if a competent court finds that there have been breaches of a person's human rights, there should be a refusal to make the delivery order. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is well aware of the point that the amendment seeks to make and I shall not elaborate on it any further. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: For the avoidance of doubt and for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I am not suggesting that the remedy that the English court should grant would be the kind that he has in mind when, as I shall do later, I press for a wider application for judicial review than habeas corpus. I shall simply be seeking a remedy by way of a declaration of rights which can then be transmitted to the Minister and to the ICC but not to an order of the kind that he has in mind to refuse delivery. I want to make that quite clear. Habeas corpus is one thing; but I do not wish to fetter the machinery in the way that the noble Lord has in mind. If he thinks that I do, then it is my fault; I must have mistaken him.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was characteristically so clear in his previous exposition that I had understood that to be the case.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I understand it, these amendments will not be moved.
Lord Kingsland: That is not quite the case. Amendment No. 24 has been moved; however, I have indicated that it will be withdrawn because the ground that it covers is covered in a different way by Amendments Nos. 24A and 28A, which I shall deal with when we come to the next group. I shall not move
1302
Amendments Nos. 30B and 32A because a declaration of inadmissibility regarding my Amendment No. 30A makes them ineffective. I have spoken to Amendment No. 35A; that was also the subject matter of my recent exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Goldsmith: I am slightly confused as to where matters stand following what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said. My understanding is that the noble Lord does not intend to press Amendment No. 24, either now or in the future—and that is what I am interested in. Were he intending to press the amendment in the future, there are a number of other points that I should like to suggest that he consider before doing so. But if he does not intend to press the amendment, I need not weary the Committee with those points.
Lord Kingsland: I can confirm that I do not intend to press the amendment, either now or at any subsequent stage in the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification. Amendment No. 35A deals with the point that we have discussed on an earlier occasion. It relates to line 11 on page 4, and seeks to,
"leave out from ("shall") to end of line 13 and insert ("refuse to make the delivery order").
I hope I have made my position plain. I do not think that I can assist the Committee by simply repeating the mirror argument.
Lord Kingsland: My understanding of the noble and learned Lord's position was exactly as he just expressed it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 24A:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert (", and
(c) that the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for being unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute the named person,").
The noble Lord said: I said that the end that I sought in tabling Amendment No. 24 might be achieved in an alternative way, by means of Amendments Nos. 24A and 28A. The principle upon which both amendments are based is the principle of complementarity.
With Amendment No. 24A, I seek to add a new paragraph, (c), stating,
"that the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for being unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute the named person".
This amendment is a concrete expression of the principle of complementarity. In my submission an individual who is under threat of having a delivery order made against him ought to be able to test the reasons why the state has decided not to deal with his case in the United Kingdom. In normal circumstances I would expect the Secretary of State to have a legally proper response—for example, that it was impossible to garner the kind of evidence that was needed to advance the prosecution from the United Kingdom, or

1303
that the alleged crime involved was of an international nature and required the probably more effective procedural devices at the disposal of the International Criminal Court to acquire the evidence that was needed to further the prosecution. There may be other perfectly proper reasons why the Secretary of State was not in a position to pursue the prosecution.
However, there may be occasions when the reasons why the United Kingdom Government have chosen not to pursue a prosecution are highly questionable in law. The motives may be improper or irrelevant; for example, there may be political motives—perish the thought—behind a decision not to pursue a prosecution which were unacceptable in—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. But, understanding as I do that he is well aware of the way in which these procedures operate, I am puzzled because it is not the Government and it is not the Secretary of State who decide whether someone will be prosecuted or who direct the prosecution. That being so, I do not quite follow why the test of whether someone will not be prosecuted in this country is whether the Secretary of State is unwilling that he should be prosecuted.
Lord Kingsland: As I understand itk, the principle behind the Rome statute is the principle of complementarity; that is to say, the primary responsibility for bringing a prosecution against an individual for one of the crimes set out in the schedules to this Bill is the responsibility of the nation state. Perhaps I should have referred to the Crown Prosecution Service or to the Government in general rather than to the Secretary of State. If that is the point the noble and learned Lord makes, I accede immediately. What I am suggesting to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is that an individual faced with a request from the International Criminal Court ought to be able to test the reasons why the responsible authorities in the United Kingdom have chosen not to prosecute him.
In most circumstances the responsible authorities will have a perfectly valid reason for not doing so. I have already given an example of the difficulties of garnering evidence. There may be other reasons which are perfectly proper. But it is conceivable in my judgment that there may arise circumstances where in law the motives of the responsible authorities in this country for not prosecuting someone in the United Kingdom are improper. In my submission, an individual ought to have the opportunity to have that matter tested in the national court. I can see nothing—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I hope that my noble friend will address the following question. This is possibly relevant to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said. Have there not been cases where decisions have been made relating to the early release of prisoners in Northern Ireland which have meant that other people who might have been prosecuted would have been released immediately had they been prosecuted and found guilty, and that therefore they might not be prosecuted for that reason?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I have no doubt that there is something in what my noble friend has said, although I do not wish to pursue that analogy in the context of the point that I am making here. I hope that I have explained Amendment No. 24A. Before I move that amendment I shall speak to the other amendments on that page.
In a sense, an alternative way of dealing with this matter is provided by Amendment No. 28A. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will recall that this point came up right at the beginning of the Committee stage this afternoon. He may find this an easier concept or approach to accept than the approach under Amendment No. 24A. Here I am suggesting that, if the ICC seeks to have someone it wishes to prosecute delivered up and the responsible authorities in the United Kingdom wish nevertheless to pursue the prosecution domestically, they should have the power under this Bill to make the appropriate submissions themselves to the International Criminal Court in the Hague to that effect. That opportunity, as I read it, is not open to them under Clause 5(4). It is clearly open to the individual to make some submissions about the admissibility of the warrant, but it does not appear to me to be open to the responsible authorities in the United Kingdom itself. This amendment seeks to fill that gap by providing such an opportunity to the responsible authorities.
The other amendment to which I need to speak, Amendment No. 29A, which I believe is in the same group, simply deals with the provision of legal aid to an individual who would be making some submissions. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I of course have sympathy with the underlying point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the principle of complementarity means that, where a prosecution can be brought in this country, that is what probably ought to happen. The other amendments to which the noble Lord refers are concerned with how the International Criminal Court becomes aware of whether or not the relevant country is prepared to institute those proceedings. My understanding—the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will state the correct position—is that procedures are, or will be, in place so that where this country wants to prosecute that is a feature which will be known to the International Criminal Court and therefore will make the case inadmissible as far as the court is concerned under Article 17.
That is the first point; namely, how the court becomes aware that the authorities in a particular country are prepared to prosecute because if they are prepared, and are able, to prosecute, the case will not be admissible. It seems to me at the moment—probably I have misunderstood the position—that the noble Lords's alternative way of dealing with this issue (Amendment No. 24A) does exactly the opposite of what the statute is intended to achieve. If a state is unable or unwilling to prosecute—that will include

1305
cases where it is willing but does not have reasonable grounds not to do so—the statute intends that the International Criminal Court will have jurisdiction.
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is this. If the Secretary of State or the Crown Prosecution Service—whatever the authority will be—should prosecute but will not do so, the court will not issue the delivery order to send the matter to the International Criminal Court—the very court which should, in those circumstances, prosecute. I test some of the noble Lord's amendments in this way. What would we think if another country which did not have the same approach put into its legislation a law which states, "We shall not send someone to the International Criminal Court if we think that our own government do not have reasonable grounds for not prosecuting"? Nor could the court force them to prosecute. That would put the case in limbo; no one would have jurisdiction.
I have sympathy with the underlying concern but the matter has to be dealt with by procedures whereby the ICC knows whether we are prepared to prosecute—I hope that the Attorney-General will explain the position—rather than the provision in Amendment No. 24A.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I cannot believe that it is in the pubic interest or compatible with the purposes of the Bill or the ICC statute to ask English courts on a routine basis to answer the question posed by Amendment No. 24A,
"that the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for being unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute the named person".
I cannot imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would welcome that as a judicial task except in the most extreme circumstances. It would be contrary to the whole of our legal system, as we have built it up, to start giving courts that scope for judicial intervention except in the most extreme case.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am puzzled by the structure of what the noble Lord seeks to do. I agree with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. Clearly, the intention is that it is only where the authorities—whoever they are—are unwilling to prosecute that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is invoked.
Let us suppose that a court in this country were given the opportunity to ask the question which the noble Lord invites to be asked in the amendment. Let us suppose that it comes to the conclusion that the authorities—I think that the noble Lord accepts that the Secretary of State is not the appropriate authority—have bad reasons for not prosecuting and should have prosecuted; and for that reason the ICC should not have jurisdiction. What would happen next? Would the court then have some power to order the appropriate authorities to prosecute? That would be the first time in 600 years that such a power has been invested in a court in this country, to my knowledge.
1306
Clearly it is not for the courts to second guess the prosecuting authorities as to why someone has not been prosecuted.
Lord Avebury: These matters will presumably work on the same lines as apply to the torture convention. If it is alleged that someone within our jurisdiction has committed any of the offences specified in Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the matter is referred to a special unit of the Metropolitan Police which conducts an investigation. If it finds that there is sufficient evidence, it is referred to the Crown Prosecution Service which can then decide whether to bring proceedings.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will confirm my assumption that there will need to be an enormous expansion of that special unit within the Metropolitan Police to investigate allegations of offences which may subsequently be the subject of charges before the International Criminal Court.
I remember an interesting talk that the noble and learned Lord gave about the operations of the War Crimes Act. He laid out the enormous resources that we should have to deploy in terms of lawyers and investigating police officers to result in a small yield of prosecutions or convictions. If we are to take our obligations under the ICC legislation seriously, we shall need to have thorough investigating provisions within our police forces. It is they who will first be seized of allegations of offences under the Bill. For that purpose, there will presumably be close liaison between the police and the authorities of the ICC when deciding where the proceedings would be most appropriately brought.
If witnesses are largely in another jurisdiction, perhaps it would not be best for that person to be tried within the English courts, irrespective of the fact that he happened to be present here. There have been cases of war criminals who swam into our jurisdiction who were wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal. I know of one example. Muvunyi, a Rwandan, was an alleged war criminal who was resident in south London. He was known to the media for many months before an indictment was issued. He was then arrested and delivered up to the tribunal because it would have been inappropriate for him to have been dealt with under our jurisdiction. It would have been impossible to bring the witnesses here and to have collected the evidence which would have resulted in his conviction.
I take it that these considerations will apply once the Bill is on the statute book. There will be some instances where it is correct for us to take proceedings in the English or Scottish courts, and others where it is more appropriate for the matter to be dealt with in the ICC. Those will be the subject of negotiations between the authorities.
However, to put the provision into the Bill at this stage would be counter to the provisions of Article 59 of the statute. In the amendments put forward, the Conservative Opposition seek to go behind the statute and amend it through this legislation. That cannot be

1307
accepted by the Committee. If we do so, it will be impossible for us to meet our obligations and ratify the treaty.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the group of amendments includes Amendments Nos. 29, 24A, 28A and 29A.
If passed, Amendment No. 29 would put into the Bill the provision that no delivery order shall be made to the ICC in the case where there is or has been an investigation under domestic law. That is not necessary on the face of the Bill for the reasons which were set out by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. The way that the measure will work will be this. No request will come from the ICC in such a case so there will be no need to refuse a request in such a case. When the ICC', prosecutor begins to consider an investigation against a UK national, the ICC notifies all interested states. When we receive that notification, we have the opportunity to notify the ICC of our intention to investigate ourselves. In that case, as the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated the ICC will not issue a request for delivery. It is an important point and I am glad to have had this opportunity for clarification.
Amendment No. 24A suggests that a delivery order should be made only if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for being unwilling or unable to prosecute. With great respect, I confirm the observation made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. As colleagues will readily confirm, in this country the Crown Prosecution Service and the Law Officers are not an arm of the Government. Our advice, palatable or not, is our advice. The Crown Prosecution Service was set up as an independent prosecuting service.
The point that Amendment No. 24A is not workable is valid, but that does not take away from the point that would be made if it were redrafted. There could be no review of whether the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for being unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute, but he does not carry out either function in any event; the Crown Prosecution Service does that, under the superintendence of the Law Officers.
Be that as it may, Amendment No. 24A is not necessary. The provision is implicit in the Bill and explicit in the statute. As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith pointed out, Article 19 offers the challenges to admissibility. They can be made by the accused, by a person for whom a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear has been issued or a by state that has jurisdiction over a case—such as the United Kingdom—on the grounds that it is investigating or prosecuting the case or has investigated or prosecuted it. That does not need to be spelled out in the Bill because it is in the statute to which the Bill gives effect. It is implicit in the Bill and explicit in the statute.
The same answer applies to Amendment No. 28A. The Secretary of State, the person sought or even another state are able to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICC.
1308
The final point was on Amendment No. 29A and the provision of legal aid. Articles 55 and 67D of the statute provide that persons coming before the ICC shall have the right to counsel in any case in which the interests of justice require it, without payment, if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it.
6 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Attorney-General for his response and all those who have contributed to this interesting debate. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, on Amendment No. 24A, if a court found that the Government's motives were improper, no prosecution would go ahead in the United Kingdom and the Government would be prevented from submitting the individual to the International Criminal Court. I entirely accept that the consequences of such a finding—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My noble and learned friend Lord Archer knows that I am not being discourteous, but it is critical to remember what he said. The Government do not prosecute. That is one of the glories of our system. This is not semantics. The Crown Prosecution Service is independent of the Government and in so far as the Law Officers influence the Crown Prosecution Service, which they may do by their decisions in some circumstances, they are not the Government. That is an important point.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: What my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General says is absolutely right and of vital importance. Even if the amendment were amended to read, "the Crown Prosecution Service and the Law Officers" instead of, "the Secretary of State", there would still be a grave logical difficulty. The situation that the noble Lord has just posited is one in which the court has decided that the motives of those who decided not to prosecute were improper and therefore that the ICC shall not have jurisdiction. Presumably the court has decided that the person in question ought to be prosecuted, but the noble Lord says that he cannot be prosecuted in this country either—or anywhere.
Lord Kingsland: A decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute can be judicially reviewed in certain circumstances. The situation is not constitutionally unknown in the United Kingdom.
I entirely accept the admonition about the Secretary of State. I did not intend to give the impression that I thought that the Secretary of State would be the prosecutor in those circumstances. It is, of course, the Crown Prosecution Service.
I draw great comfort from the Attorney-General's response to Amendment No. 28A. Sometimes he appears to put parts of the Rome Statute in the Bill and sometimes he says that they are implicit. In this case, the relevant part of Article 19 is clearly implied. I am grateful to him for confirming that, because it provides the protection that we are seeking. In those

1309
circumstances, I shall not need to pursue Amendment No. 24A on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 33 not moved.]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert (", or
(c) that there is reason to believe that the person would not receive a fair trial in accordance with principles of United Kingdom law,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would add something to the Bill as it concerns the law of the United Kingdom. It would not amend the Rome Statute—we have learned by now that that is ruled out of court, as the Bill is intended to give effect to that statute as it stands. The amendment would add a third consideration for the competent court. It is the minimum that we as legislators should consider appropriate for people who are likely to be transferred to a higher jurisdiction or tried under our domestic courts. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I made a similar suggestion during the consultation process, but I was persuaded by the response to that process that I was mistaken.
In favour of the amendment, Section 43 of the New Zealand statute says that a person will not be eligible for surrender unless his rights, in accordance with the law of New Zealand, have been respected. The New Zealand Government obviously believe that that is compatible with the ICC Statute. However, on further reflection, I rather doubt it.
I simply want to make the following point for all of us who are so sure that the English system of justice is the best and fairest in the world, even in the criminal justice sphere, notwithstanding the many judgments found against us by the European Court of Human Rights. My point is that the statute of the court goes further in protecting the fundamental human rights and freedoms of the accused than any other international human rights instrument that I have ever seen. Article 66 carries a presumption of innocence, and Article 67 spells out the rights of the accused in great detail.
As the effect of the amendment would be to introduce another fetter on transfer to the International Criminal Court of a kind which I do not believe to be compatible with the statute or necessary, as I have full confidence in the ability of the International Criminal Court to ensure a concept of justice as good as our own, I would be against the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is quite right. Of course, we examined the statute and also the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. I believe that it is fair to say, quite
1310
moderately, that the Rules of Procedure and Evidence fully reflect the rights known in domestic law and in the European Convention on Human Rights. I suggest that making provision for a domestic court to refuse surrender in those circumstances is, first, not required and, secondly, not permitted under the statute.
Earl Attlee: I hesitate to interject, but the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, have suggested that this amendment fetters the right to transfer to the International Criminal Court. However, it simply requires the notification of the Secretary of State to the ICC; it does not prevent transfer.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord, Lord Howell, replies to the amendment, I want to raise one question. I entirely accept the view of my noble friend that the amendment is almost certainly incompatible with the Rome Statute. The amendment is one of a series put forward by the Conservative Front Bench which is, to a greater or lesser extent, incompatible and which would make it impossible for this country to ratify the Rome Statute without making a reservation. That, as we know, is not possible. In those circumstances, is that the intention of the Conservative Front Bench? Is it their intention to frustrate the ratification by this country of the Rome Statute or is it not?
Lord Avebury: I certainly believe that it would be highly undesirable for us to put these words on to the statute book. They would give an indication to the International Criminal Court, before it started its operations, that people in this country have some doubt as to whether it will try people fairly. Why would we have entered into the ratification of the treaty if we did not believe—I hope that we do believe—that the International Criminal Court will give as fair a trial as any court in our domestic jurisdiction, whether in England or Scotland?
The Conservatives are not trying to avert the surrender of the persons to whom the provision might apply; they are trying to provide that the Secretary of State, after being notified that there is reason to believe that a person would not receive a fair trial, would be notified of that finding in accordance with the final sentence of Clause 5(6). Therefore, as I understand the amendment, the Secretary of State would not have to do anything about such a finding other than transmit it to the International Criminal Court. I believe that that was the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
Nevertheless, placing us in the position of having to tell the International Criminal Court that we would not expect it to give people a fair trial would not be a good start to the operations of that supremely important tribunal. I do not believe that words should appear in the Bill which give the impression that this House, or this Parliament, has no confidence in the standards of justice that will be delivered in the ICC.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may add one comment to the points that have been made, all of which I agree with. If I may say so, the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is particularly important. Not only might the International Criminal Court be offended by what we say but, far more importantly, we might give the impression to other countries that this country or this House takes the view that the International Criminal Court may not give a fair trial. We certainly do not want to convey that message. It is one with which we would not agree at all and it would simply provide a pretext for other countries not to bring the statute into effect or support it themselves. I invite the noble Lord to consider that point, too.
Lord Kingsland: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in relation to the International Criminal Court. It would be appalling if that impression were given. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind that in the course of the passage of the Human Rights Bill in your Lordships' House, one of the reasons given by many speakers for bringing home rights was uncertainty about the quality of the judges who would be appointed to the expanded European Court of Human Rights. In the past, concerns have been expressed in your Lordships' House about the quality of judges, although I believe that in present circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is absolutely right to make his point.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Will the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, accept that the promoters of the incorporation of the convention, of which I was one and the Government were the main ones, have never suggested in any debate that the reason for giving domestic effect to the convention was a lack of confidence in the new—or the old—European Court of Human Rights? The reason was wherever possible to provide speedy and effective remedies in our courts so that there might be a principle of complementarity.
I know that the noble Lord does not wish to be rude about the International Criminal Court, but I am sure that neither does he wish to be rude about the new court, whose record, I believe, has been admirable. Its judges have come from central and eastern Europe as well as from western Europe. I hope that the noble Lord agrees with that.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester: quite the contrary. During the course of the debate on the Bill in your Lordships' House, I was one of the very few speakers who wished the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to be binding on our own courts. Indeed, I recall that I was almost alone in wishing that. Therefore, if I may say so, at least so far as I am concerned, my position is wholly consistent with complete trust in the judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lord Brennan: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will forgive me. Before he replies, will he confirm that
1312
the doubts referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, were not expressed from these Benches and are not shared on these Benches?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was not rising to reply further except to agree that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was right. I believe that I made my reply on the effect of Amendment No. 34 too short. I should have said that this amendment, if taken with Amendment No. 35, would have had the consequence to which I referred. He is quite right with regard to the position of Amendment No. 34 on its own. I simply wanted to express that accurately.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I believe that it is my turn to end the discussion. I say straight away that I considered the reply of the noble and learned Lord in setting out his view of the unacceptability of the amendment to be fair and precise. Indeed, although the noble Lord, Lord Lester, spoke against the amendment, he also indicated that certain matters had passed through his mind and needed to be given further thought.
Although I hate to step in this direction, must add that I regarded the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as mildly unfortunate. He must know perfectly well that in seeking to fulfil our duty in this Committee, we are having to walk a tightrope. Many noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who worked for years on this matter, will appreciate the nature of the tightrope. First, we do not in any way want to impede or fetter, or place obstacles in the way of, the effort to bring to justice, in a way that has not happened in the past but which we hope will happen when we have a permanent court rather than ad hoc tribunals, monstrous perpetrators of hideous crimes. On the other hand, it is also our duty to safeguard the rights of the subjects of this kingdom. When those two considerations are in conflict, we need to measure them very carefully. That is what we are seeking to do. To call that an attempt to frustrate the Bill is not fair or reasonable. I put that on the record because I feel it very strongly indeed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 35a not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions as to proceedings before competent court]
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 37, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) for the purposes of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1956 and any regulations made thereunder, solemn legal aid shall be made available in respect of such proceedings or any appeal provisions following thereon").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment that has Scottish origins. Since I had so much luck with the previous amendment, I shall try my luck again with this amendment.
The amendment provides that "solemn legal aid" shall be available for proceedings that are raised under the Bill. The reasoning is that, as the Bill is currently drafted, Clause 6(3)(b) would result in summary criminal legal aid being available in Scotland in relation to proceedings that were raised under those provisions. In practical terms, the Criminal Legal Aid (Fixed Payments) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 would apply. Payment in relation to the preparation and conduct of those important proceedings would therefore be limited to £500.
I am advised that in Scotland legal aid for serious cases, which are dealt with under solemn procedure, is paid on a time-and-line basis. There is therefore no upper financial limit on the extent of the work that can be carried out. The Law Society of Scotland advised me that it believes that cases under the Bill should also be dealt with on that basis; hence the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I shall use this simple, technical amendment relating to Scotland as a peg on which to hang a much wider question relating to Scotland, which I want to put to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. There seem to be few other windows of opportunity this evening. The Bill relates not to the whole of the United Kingdom but only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. What happens if the Scottish Parliament declines to approve a parallel Bill? In practice it is highly unlikely that it would take such a course, but in theory it has every right to do so; that is provided for in the Scotland Act. International treaties have nothing to do with Edinburgh; they are matters for Westminster. If the Scottish Parliament says, "No, we are not going to pass a similar Bill", how would that leave the United Kingdom's international obligations?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Even in the and wastes of the late afternoon, this is a delightful moment, and I am glad that there are many lawyers in the Chamber. Legal aid was described as being solemn; I appreciate that that is a term of art, but it is one that I had not come across before dealing with the Bill. I shall have to write about it on the back of a postcard and send it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Clause 6(3)(a) prescribes that proceedings should be summary in nature. Solemn legal aid north of the Border relates to solemn proceedings; that is, on indictment for serious offences which would involve a jury.
That is my first answer; my second is well known. The operation and regulation of legal aid is a function that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and it would therefore not be appropriate for us to legislate in that regard. That really is the rat's answer, but I thought that I had better give it! I believe that my first answer is the more important.
1314
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the Bill will extend to Scotland for arrest and surrender. For criminal offences, our colleagues north of the Border have their own legislation.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The grasp that the noble and learned Lord has of the intricacies of Scottish law, including the law relating to devolution, is certainly superior to mine. I bow to his knowledge in these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Consent to surrender]:
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("which") to end of line 2 and insert ("the justice of the peace, or in Scotland, the sheriff, is satisfied that the person is incapable by reason of mental disorder or of inability to communicate because of physical disability and that it is appropriate for a person to act on his behalf").
The noble Lord said: The amendment probes the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for another person to act on behalf of the person arrested for the purpose of consenting to surrender.
We believe that consent to surrender should be given by another person only in very restrictive circumstances, such as when the person arrested is incapable of giving consent. The effect on an individual's liberty of granting such consent is so significant that the court should be satisfied that the person is incapable of making a decision in that regard before another person can act on his or her behalf.
Amendment No. 62 would have the same effect, and I do not need to elaborate on Amendment No. 63. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments. The limitation on the definition of incapacity might very well restrict the court's discretion in judging those matters. Every case will be different and it is important to ensure that all eventualities are covered. That is the reason for the Bill's general wording. In this context, in which definitions are very difficult, it is better to leave that wording general so that the courts may decide.
Lord Kingsland: I am not happy with the response of the noble and learned Lord, but I shall reflect on whether to return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 42 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Procedure where court refuses order]
Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 and 72.
The amendments would allow the court to have discretion about whether to continue to remand a prisoner where a court refuses an order and to allow for the release of a prisoner when an order has been refused.
Amendment No. 43 gives the court discretion when it refuses an order. When the court has refused an application to make a delivery order, it can make an order remanding the person arrested and notify the Secretary of State of its discretion. The amendment would give the court the discretion as to the above if the court so refuses to make a delivery order.
The argument that lies behind Amendment No. 44 is that, if a person is entitled to resist a delivery order, he is entitled to his liberty. Amendment No. 46 again comes from the Scottish direction and represents the view of the Law Society of Scotland, which stated that there may be some dubiety as to what constitutes the term "without delay" for the purposes of the clause. It may be better in the interests of clarity to specify a period within which the court should be informed if an appeal is to be brought under Sections 9 or 10.
Amendment No. 47 seeks to place a time limit upon the court being informed of an appeal under Clauses 9 and 10 so that the court can ensure that the order for removal lasts no longer than 24 hours, if the court so orders.
Amendment No. 72 again represents the view of the Law Society of Scotland whose contention is that the term "without delay" could lead to confusion as to the appropriate period of time within which the Secretary of State should notify the court of his decision in regard to whether to accede to the request. Again, the amendment seeks the provision of a specific period of time to avoid disputes. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As regards Amendment No. 43, the provision as drafted allows a court further to remand a prisoner if an intention to appeal is lodged with he court by the Secretary of State, or, of course, north of the Border, the Scottish Ministers.
We believe that that is very important indeed. It reflects similar provisions in the Extradition Act. I attach importance to this matter because these are very serious crimes, by definition. Let us think of a prospective defendant like General Mladic, for example. We remand defendants accused of less serious crimes if there is a likelihood that they may abscond. I believe that ICC crimes are so serious that that provision is required to remove any risk of absconding. If there were an absconding at that point, before we had completed domestic proceedings, that would be very damaging to the United Kingdom's reputation internationally and we should be in breach of our obligations under the statute. Therefore, I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45 or 48.
Remand does not necessarily mean custody. It would be open to the court, subject to the other provisions of the Bill, to remand on bail with conditions.
1316
Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 relate to time limits which would bind the Secretary of State to make a decision whether to appeal within 48 or 24 hours. Of course, I endorse the noble Lord's concern, and I share it, to ensure that these cases are dealt with speedily. I am sure that they will be. But it is not necessary to specify those rigid periods of time. They will be extremely difficult and important cases. Any Secretary of State will put his mind to his decision extremely promptly. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press this matter.
Amendment No. 72 would impose an inflexible 48-hour time limit for the Secretary of State to notify the court of his decision. I do not think that we should look to rigid time limits in particular areas. I assure the Committee that every effort will be made to notify the court expeditiously of the Secretary of State's decision. As I said, the words "without delay" are intended to confirm that. In this particular area, with very difficult cases indeed, we should not have rigid limits. A margin not of appreciation but of time should be allowed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for those replies. I accept fully the point he makes about the concern in relation to individuals associated with hideous crimes being allowed to abscond. That would be unacceptable.
I take also the point that he is concerned about rigid time limits and I am reassured by the use of his words about speed and expeditious treatment of those matters because that is an extremely important aspect not only of handling this sort of crime but of justice generally. So in the light of the noble and learned Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, 'withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Appeal against refusal of delivery order: England and Wales]:
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert ("or the person subject to the order").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a simple point. We believe that there is no justification for limiting an appeal in these circumstances to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that this is a genuine misunderstanding because Clause 9 is concerned with the right of the Secretary of Stale to appeal against the refusal to make a deliver) order. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would give the same rights to the person named in that order; in other words, someone who has just been released is given the right to appeal against his own release. There is no new thing under the sun, as my father used to tell me, but this, really!
Lord Kingsland: The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is quite right and I apologise to the

1317
Committee for the text of the amendment. However, I believe that the noble and learned Lord knows what I am getting at; and perhaps I may invite him to take the Floor again to respond to the intention which lies behind the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have said on other occasions that the other bit of advice my father gave me was to keep away from loose women and hypothetical questions. Alas, my experience is that the latter has been a more common experience than the former.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his old-fashioned wisdom, and meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Procedure where court makes order]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("ordinary language") and insert ("a language he fully understands and speaks").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 54 which has a similar purpose.
Under the Bill as it stands, where a delivery order is made against an individual, it says that he shall be informed in ordinary language of his rights to review.
The Law Society of Scotland notes that:
"As currently drafted, this clause only requires the court to advise the person of his or her clause 12 rights in 'ordinary' language. No definition is given of 'ordinary' language. The effect of this could be that the person is advised of his rights in a language which he does not understand, albeit that it is in ordinary language.
If the right to review of the delivery order is to be meaningful, the person should be advised of this right in a language which he or she understands".
Our amendment is designed to make it clear that where the person does not speak English, he must be informed in his own language. That would bring the Bill into line with the language used by the statute itself. For example, Article 55 of the statute dealing with the rights of persons during an investigation provides that if a person is questioned in a,
"language other than the language the person fully understands and speaks",
he shall have the assistance of a competent interpreter.
Article 67, which concerns the rights of the accused during trial, provides that the accused should be,
"informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language he fully understands and speaks".
I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has put the argument behind his amendment
1318
with his customary lucidity. I endorse the aims behind the amendment as reflected in other amendments that, as we have been reminded, cannot be called.
I know that it will be said that English is one of the languages of the court and that "ordinary language" should suffice, but many languages are spoken and many individuals of British nationality may have difficulty with the English tongue. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggests must be an improvement and a strengthening of the situation. I declare support for it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe that this amendment is as bad as the original wording. I do not believe that the situation raised in Clause 11 will be cured by his amendment that uses the words,
"a language he fully understands and speaks".
I ask my noble and learned friend to reconsider this matter and to return with more appropriate wording. I do not believe that the word "fully" should be incorporated in the Bill.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may not have observed that the word "fully" occurs in the statute; for example, in Article 67, paragraph 1(f) where the accused is to have free of cost translations of documents,
"in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks".
That is probably the same wording as is to be found in another article quoted by my noble friend, Article 55. In so far as the Government have tried faithfully to reflect the wording of the statute in the Bill, I believe it would be better to use those words rather than any others. We do not need to spend a lot of time returning to the drawing board and considering alternatives because the wording that my noble friend has put forward is fully in accordance with the statute and therefore is to be preferred to what is at present in the Bill.
Lord Monson: I, too, find this amendment a great improvement on the wording as it stands.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise with the point. In Clause 11(1)(b) we use the phrase "ordinary language" because it would be an injustice if one were to explain matters, in any language, in legal phrases so that a person could not understand, whether the person was English speaking or not. The words "ordinary language" are meant to refer to non-technical language that an individual can follow. We shall arrange for a guarantee that, where appropriate, anyone arrested under this Bill will have access to an interpreter in accordance with his rights under Article 55 and under Article 6 of ECHR.
I do not believe that there is any difference between us. The reasons for using the words "ordinary language" are the same as those that used to be binding on judges in the Crown Court when they put someone on probation. They had to explain the conditions in ordinary language. If an individual were in a foreign land he would want matters explained in language that

1319
was ordinary to him. In other words, some people may need quite simple explanations and some may be content with intricate explanations. Whatever the language, there will be the provision to provide an interpreter, which is only right and proper, so that people can understand.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I sympathise with the objectives of the Government in departing from the language of the statute. To some extent it may be an improvement on the language of the statute. But does my noble and learned friend appreciate that the language of the statute is, as it were, set in stone, that it is certainly beyond amendment in this Committee and that people will speculate as to why we departed from that language? Is any real harm done if we follow that?
The Earl of Onslow: If the noble Lord is saying that "ordinary language" is appropriate, which is eminently sensible, why can the clause not read, "ordinary language that he fully understands and speaks"? In those circumstances one would have the best of both worlds.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not understand the policy reason behind restricting—it is a more restrictive guarantee—the language that is already in the statute. I agree with the noble Earl. It seems to me that both forms of wording could be used: "ordinary language that the person fully understands and speaks". If the Bill simply says "ordinary language" it will not guarantee that the process will work so that one is sure that the accused speaks and understands the language. Let us use the wording of the statute on the face of the Bill to ensure that everyone understands that the guarantee is that the accused should be able to speak and to understand fully the language, whether because that language is used or because an interpreter is used.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Following the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, now agrees that his own amendment may not be without blemish. We are trying to safeguard the individual. I have said that an interpreter will be available to provide the explanation in ordinary language. The ordinary language is not about the whole basis of the charge that he may face; it refers to his rights under Clause 12, the right to review of the delivery order.
I shall certainly have a look at this matter. One problem is, for example, that in the extradition Acts there is a similar provision to the one that I have advanced here. The laborious duty of trawling through some analogous Acts will call into question the provisions in similar legislation. I shall consider the matter. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, following discussions and I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library for those noble Lords who may be
1320
interested. We want exactly the same thing. I believe that the words "ordinary language" have a virtue even in this Committee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The Attorney-General believes that he uses ordinary language as I believe I do, but I can assure him that the non-lawyer Members of the Committee find the ordinary language that we use bizarre and extraordinary. In spite of our best efforts, they find it jargon-ridden or technical. For that reason I would prefer to see a further safeguard. I understand that we have a common objective. To me the sensible course is to leave the matter as it stands and to await the letter from the Attorney General. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Right to review of delivery order]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("15") and insert ("21").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 55 has a simple objective, which is to increase from 15 to 21 days the period of time for the execution of a delivery order. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The procedure in Clauses 11 and 12 was designed with the precedents of the Extradition Act 1989 and Transfer to International Criminal Tribunals in mind. Following those precedents, the time period in which an individual due to be delivered up can make his application is 15 days. I believe that 15 days is quite long enough to start the process. I am not convinced that there is any proper reason further to lengthen the process than that provided for in extradition, which I think is a reasonable analogy.
Lord Kingsland: In the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has said, I shall again reflect on our amendment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 7, line 27, after ("corpus") insert ("or for judicial review").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60. This group of amendments is designed to widen the right to review of a delivery order by means of an application for (at present) habeas corpus in Clause 12 to include an application for judicial review. I shall use ordinary language. The non-lawyer Members of the Committee may find it tedious in the extreme. However, is quite important.
As the Bill stands, the domestic safeguards by way of remedy are too narrow. Confining the right of review to a habeas corpus application means that a court can only consider whether a person has been lawfully arrested and detained and, if the court finds

1321
that the detention is unlawful, order release. That is the ancient writ of habeas corpus—a writ that runs as of right, not discretion. The problem, which is well known to judges and lawyers in this country, is that the remedy of habeas corpus has somehow to be reconciled with the broader discretionary remedies provided for by judicial review.
As I pointed out earlier in the debate, the competent court has to determine whether the rights of the accused have been breached. That is provided for in Clause 5(6)(b). Article 59(2) of the ICC statute requires the judicial authority in the custodial state to determine—I repeat, to determine—in accordance with the law of that state,
"(c) that the person's rights have been respected".
On a simple application for habeas corpus, that is not open to, in this case, the English court. An English court can decide only whether or not the detention is lawful and, if it determines that it is not, quash the detention and order the release of the prisoner.
Article 59(2) contemplates a determination, in accordance with English law, that the person's rights have been respected, and that that determination be transmitted by the Secretary of State to the International Criminal Court by the Secretary of State. That is a very important point. In addition to a quashing order for habeas corpus, provision is needed to allow the competent court to grant a declaration that the rights of the suspect have been infringed. That will not give rise to any automatic remedy. It is discretionary, which is a built-in safeguard. However, it will ensure that there is a proper, judicially reasoned determination, which can be sent to the Secretary of State, and then to the International Criminal Court.
I have received a letter from the Minister of State in the other place, Mr Peter Hain, in reply to questions that I raised at Second Reading about this matter. In respect of the extent to the right of review, Mr Hain indicated that the Bill broadly follows the provisions of the Extradition Act, the Backing of Warrants Act and the UN (International Tribunals) Orders. But those Acts are very different in scope and have very different sets of procedures and safeguards from those in this Bill. In particular, unlike this Bill, they do not provide for a judicial determination of whether the rights of the accused have been breached, nor for that determination to be sent to an international court.
The Minister in his letter also noted—and I think this is an example of the doctrine of the unripe time—that the recent review by Sir Jeffrey Bowman of the Crown Office List had recommended that habeas corpus should be subsumed into judicial review, except in extradition cases. Extradition cases were singled out because the review was concerned solely with the Crown Office List, and consideration of extradition was outside its remit. The Minister indicated that, as the Government are currently considering the relationship between habeas corpus and judicial review, it would be unwise to pre-empt those deliberations by amending the Bill to provide for judicial review—a somewhat bureaucratic reason. I
1322
submit that there are good reasons, specific to this Bill, why the greater safeguard of judicial review should be included in the right to review in order to make sense of this specific machinery.
I have again looked at Sir Jeffrey Bowman's report of March 2000 to the Lord Chancellor. I shall not weary the Committee with the detail. To cut a long story short, it is recommended that habeas corpus should become an order available on an application for judicial review; that there should be statutory provision to ensure that the discretionary elements of judicial review relating to permission to proceed and time limits and remedies should not apply when habeas corpus is sought.
Our amendments would do nothing to prejudge any wider reforms that the Lord Chancellor or Parliament may make in the wake of Sir Jeffrey Bowman's sensible recommendations. The amendments are tailor-made for this particular Bill. That is because they empower the judge to make a declaration, if so advised, which can then be used in the way that I have indicated, rather than having to rely upon the too narrow procedure for habeas corpus. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I run the risk of misinterpreting the noble Lord, for which I apologise in advance. I had not previously read the information that the noble Lord has put before the Committee. Perhaps I may ask in what way the words of his proposal devalue the proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I believe that he has made a powerful case for changing the Bill in this respect. I cannot imagine that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will immediately be able to approve the words that he has added. If not, the burden rests with him. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take away the Bill and examine very carefully the words which the noble Lord prays to be inserted.
7 p.m.
Lord Avebury: Speaking as a mere layman, when the Attorney-General comes to reply perhaps he can say whether there is any other method by which the provisions of Article 59(2)(c) can be given effect. The statute provides that the competent judicial authority shall determine that,
"The person's rights have been respected".
As I understand my noble friend Lord Lester, in an application for habeas corpus that matter is not within the competence of the court. It is only if there is an application for judicial review that the question whether a person's rights have been respected can be determined. The court would not deal with that of its own volition unless an allegation was made by the individual that one or other of his rights had been infringed. If my noble friend's amendment is not accepted, can the Attorney-General advise the Committee how else those provisions of the statute are to be implemented?
Lord Kingsland: As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, this matter is dealt with in Article 59(2) of

1323
the Rome Statute. This point is also discussed briefly in paragraph 25 of the Explanatory Notes:
"if the domestic court considers that there have been violations of proper process or of the person's rights, the ICC will be informed of this determination. It is intended that this determination will not, however, affect the court's decision whether or not to issue a delivery order under subsection (2)".
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with which I respectfully agree, deals with what he believes should be the domestic judicial consequences of a violation of proper process. What consequences does the noble and learned Lord believe may flow from informing the International Criminal Court that proper process has not been respected in the domestic jurisdiction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I deal first with the latter two matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Kingsland. Beginning with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the answer is to be found in Clause 5(6). The noble Lord asked how a determination can be made under Article 59(2)(c). The answer is that under Article 59(2) a person who is arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent judicial authority in the custodial state. That competent judicial authority—we have already looked at definitions—is that which we find in Clause 5(6). Therefore, one determines whether a person's rights have been respected by means of Clause 5(6), because the competent court must come to that conclusion.
Lord Avebury: There is a preliminary issue to be dealt with; namely, how the allegation that the person's rights have not been respected can be brought before the court. Such a declaration cannot be made under Clause 5(6)(b) if the court does not know that the person alleges infringement of his rights. The individual must have a mechanism by which to do that. As my noble friend explains, that matter cannot be dealt with under habeas corpus. Therefore, judicial review is a necessary mechanism by which the matter can be brought before the court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the noble Lord mistakes the position. If that point is asserted by the accused (if I may so describe him for present purposes) it can be dealt with before the competent court. The accused can allege that his arrest is unlawful or that his rights have not been respected. Therefore, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in relation to Article 59(2)(c) is answered by Clause 5(6).
The related question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is: what would be the expected consequence in the ICC following onward transmission of that conclusion by the Secretary of State? It seems to me that a variety of consequences may follow. The notification of itself would put the ICC prosecutor on the alert. If he decided to proceed the ICC would consider the matter. Depending on the nature of the lack of respect for the accused's rights, it might easily conclude that it would not be right or appropriate to continue with the prosecution. That is
1324
no different from the scenario that I outlined earlier; namely, that if I appear before the Crown Court and allege that my rights have not been respected, whether it be access to legal advice, access to counsel, or that the tribunal is not impartial—all the matters with which we are familiar—then, depending on the nature, extent and relevance of the abuse, a prosecution can be halted.
I turn next to the question of habeas corpus and judicial review.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord again gives way to my intervention. If the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General turns to Clause 5(4), does he foresee circumstances in which the responsible authority in the United Kingdom would inform the ICC that there has been a breach of an individual's rights and that that affects the admissibility of the case?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As I read Clause:5(4), that would be a matter for the competent court itself. The necessary pre-condition to going to the ICC to argue admissibility is that the competent court should adjourn. If it is persuaded to adjourn, it is for the ICC, the prosecutor and the accused's representatives to decide whether to take that avenue. I believe that the answer to the specific question as to what happens following notification is that the delivery order is made under Clause 5(6) and thereafter the prosecutor and the ICC decide whether the interference with rights is such as to pollute the proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked whether one could have judicial review as well as habeas corpus. The noble Lord is aware of the argument about the Bowman review, with which he may not be over-impressed. That is the argument that I would have put, but I do not repeat it bearing in mind its lack of success in correspondence. But the fundamental question is: what are the issues properly to be determined on this occasion? Those issues are quite limited: first, whether the warrant is duly issued or endorsed under Clause 2; secondly, whether the person before the court is the person named in the warrant. Those questions fall entirely within the ambit of habeas corpus. I believe that this is a proper scheme legitimately to safeguard those rights. It does not remove the opportunity to try to get the competent court to find that the person's rights have not been respected.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has chided others—perhaps not me—about the doctrine of unripe time. We do not wish to include judicial review pending any determination of the wider ramifications. I shall think about the matter. It may be helpful if I say to Members of the Committee interested in this particular aspect that even if I cannot go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wants, I shall consider matters. I am trying to be helpful but also trying to keep the scheme of the Bill and the aims we are looking to. It is possible, I suppose, that we could consider judicial review if it were for the determination of rights point and the remedy was simply limited to declaration. What I want to avoid is endless preliminary skirmishing—with

1325
which the noble Lord is familiar, and I do not say that in any sense of reproach of course—that impedes the proper prosecution in the ICC. I make no guarantee of any kind. I am being as candid as I ought not to be.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down so that I can reply, can I clarify one matter with him? He is quite right; the last thing I want is to have preliminary skirmishes of the kind he referred to. Am I not right that the problem of the writ of habeas corpus is that it does not deal with any question other than the legality of the detention? One's rights are determined if one gets a release with a writ of habeas corpus; it is determined that one has been unlawfully detained. But if, on the other hand, some other relevant fundamental right has been breached, does he agree that the writ of habeas corpus cannot provide an effective remedy by way of a judicial determination—a non-binding determination because it is only a declaration—reasoned and able then to be sent on to the International Criminal Court? Does he agree that, leaving aside the solution to the problem, that is the problem with confining the issue to a writ of habeas corpus?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand that is one aspect which troubles the noble Lord. But it is for the competent court to come to the decision about respect or not of rights. He knows as well as I do that a judicial review is not an appeal on the merits, it is only an appeal on, as it were, the structures of the decision-making. I am putting the issue in terrible shorthand and not in ordinary language. I shall think about this matter. I am more than happy to discuss matters with noble Lords. But I stress that this is a genuinely open-minded suggestion. I am not making any commitment because I am not in a position to do so.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for the generosity and open-mindedness of his and his colleagues' approach to the problem. It is now well-established that, for example, one cannot use habeas corpus to complain about conditions of detention, as distinct from the legality of detention.
There was the famous and very frank American case of Herbage where he was detained in Brixton and was too large for his cell. He tried to use habeas corpus. So his fundamental right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment was breached under Article 3 of the convention. In the end the courts came to the conclusion that habeas corpus was the wrong remedy and that judicial review was the right one.
I am entirely content with an approach which confines the remedy to a purely declaratory remedy and which does not widen the scope of judicial review beyond a remedial order that can be transmitted to the International Criminal Court that the determination of the national court is that the individual's rights have not been respected. That is all I seek. Having heard the noble and learned Lord, I am sure that the right
1326
approach is to leave the matter now for further discussion. I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Waiver of right to review]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Bail and custody: general]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 9, line 30, at beginning insert ("in England and Wales,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 65, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 66, 67, 70 and 71. These are tidying up amendments concerning the operation of bail.
Amendment No. 65 seeks to make clear that Clause 16(1)(b) applies only in England and Wales because bail operates in a different way in England and Wales than in Scotland. In Scotland a person is not "remanded on bail" but is granted bail. There are other considerations behind that.
Amendment No. 66 intends to enable a court in Scotland to grant bail on the standard conditions or, if appropriate, on special conditions if the circumstances of the case so demand. The amendment seeks to ensure that the bail provisions of the Bill are in conformity with the bail provisions contained in Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Amendment No. 67 again seeks to reflect the correct legal terminology used in Scots law; that is, interpreting the Rome Statute into our United Kingdom statutes.
Amendment No. 70 provides that the person applying for bail shall receive intimation of the International Criminal Court's recommendations and be given an opportunity to address the points made. The thought behind the amendment is that Clause 18(1)(c) states that,
"bail shall not be granted without full consideration",
being given to the recommendations made by the ICC. If these recommendations could have an impact on whether a person is granted bail, the person, surely, should be given an opportunity to address the court in response to the points made. I am advised that if the amendment is passed it will ensure that court proceedings are open and transparent in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation of his thinking. May I deal first with Amendments Nos. 65 to 67. I appreciate that the amendments seek to bring the bail arrangements

1327
more closely into line with Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. I see the virtue of that. The amendments recognise, however, that the provisions in the 1995 Act cannot be followed exactly because the new concept of "proportionate" conditions is introduced. The virtue of our present wording, which I am obliged to stand to, is that it closely follows the approach in Section 9(3) of the Extradition Act 1989. It has been a well-tested model. I am not convinced that we should go away from it.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 70 to 71, I sympathise with the reasoning put forward, which I fairly summarise as if the ICC recommendations on bail in Clause 18(1) are notified, then the person most particularly concerned with release should have an opportunity to address the court and make representations. That will happen in the ordinary course of events because Clause 18(1)(c) states that,
"bail shall not be granted without full consideration of any recommendations made by the ICC".
It is necessary for full consideration to occur that representations are made. Therefore, it would not add anything to that provided by the normal court procedure. The same applies to subsection (2)(c).
In Amendment No. 71 the suggestion that a person should be granted bail unless clear and convincing evidence were put forward as a reason for refusal goes against the absence of a presumption either for or against bail, which we consider important. Perhaps a little more fundamentally, it goes against Clause 59(4). For that reason, although I understand the noble Lord's motivation, I am not able to accept these amendments.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I paraphrase what he said about the first amendment: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is what he is saying in relation to the procedures which, he says, have worked well in the past, despite the apparent anomalies drawn to our attention. In the light of that and his comments on the later amendments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 36, leave out ("on").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 69. Amendment No. 68 is consequential upon Amendment No. 67. It needs no further explanation. Amendment No. 69 seeks to extend the ambit of Clause 16(5). It would ensure that a court cannot release on bail a person who is on remand pending trial in a national court. If the national court has remanded a person in custody pending trial, then a court could not grant bail subsequently to that person in respect of an ICC matter. As currently drafted, the Bill covers
1328
those serving a sentence of imprisonment but does not deal with those on remand. The amendment seeks to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall deal with both amendments at the same time. Amendment No. 68 is entirely consequential on Amendment No. 67.
On Amendment No. 69, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has raised some interesting points. For the record, shock and horror were registered on the otherwise beatific countenance of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I should like to consider this matter quite carefully. I cannot accept the amendment in its present form but I recognise readily that a point of substance has been raised. I undertake that we will seek to provide a suitable amendment to reflect the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am more than happy—when we have a preliminary amendment to hand—to have a discussion with him. I hope that we shall be able to come to an amicable agreement.
Lord Kingsland: With my features suitably readjusted, I should thank the noble and learned Lord for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Bail and custody: consultation with the ICC, &c.]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Unscheduled landing]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Provisions as to state or diplomatic immunity]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 73:
Page 13, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it stands the Secretary of State may—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think we had agreed that at about this time we would ask that the House resume. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has come in on that basis. Would it be convenient to resume the House at this stage?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I began with a few words. I apologise in advance that I will never complete that sentence because I cannot be here for the next day in Committee; otherwise, it is plainly for the convenience of the House that I should not do so.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill
7.26 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move to the Motion and the Prayer, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word about the procedure that will follow in relation to these two items. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will move her Motion and in so doing will make her speech. There will then follow a single debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will speak next. The Minister will speak at the end. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will then have the opportunity to reply and will either press her Motion or withdraw it. If the noble Baroness presses her Motion to a Division and wins, the House authorities have advised that the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pre-empted and he will not be able to move it. If, however, the noble Baroness loses her Motion or withdraws it, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, can choose whether or not to move his Motion. If the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, moves his Motion, he may do so formally. We will then have any further Division without any debate. I hope that that clarifies the position.

Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a long Motion but with a short point of principle at its heart.
The regulations in question—whose title runs for two lines—are required by the Local Government Act 2000 but they are also—I hope that I may say this without offence—more importantly required by their principle of maximum openness in government at every level. On this occasion we are talking about local government.
During the passage of the Local Government Bill, as it then was, we on these Benches made it quite clear that our support for the Bill depended, in part, on acceptable access to information provisions. We tabled amendments that required meetings to be open to the public and the press, who are a very important part of the democratic process, providing information about what goes on locally. The amendments required those meetings to be open when councils were
1330
discussing matters pertaining to decisions. We did not press our amendments because the Government produced their own inevitably more carefully crafted amendments which we were happy to support. They are now reflected in Section 22 of the Act.
On 24th July 2000 (at col. 59 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained to the House that the amendments provided the foundations of the robust regime for public and media access to ensure that people will know what decisions the executive of the local authority is planning to take, how they can make their in-put to those decisions, what decisions have been taken and the reasons for those decisions. That statement was helpful and very important. It spelt out what accountability is: it is not simply being able to point to the person or the group who makes the decision; it is the whole process of decision making—access by those who have an interest and a contribution to the final decision.
The Act allows—in parliamentary terms that means "requires"—the Secretary of State to make regulations. A draft was published last summer. We now have regulations that are in force together with statutory guidance regarding their application. After the publication of the regulations, it was drawn to our attention that they do not wholly achieve the access which we sought and which I believe the Government intended when the matter was debated last summer.
We know that there are problems with orders. We are all aware of the convention that we do not vote on—that is, vote against—orders, or at any rate only in the rarest of circumstances. I should point out that "convention" is a term which has a different definition depending on the occasion. We know also—it is particularly important in this context—that orders are unamendable. There is no opportunity to influence their content during the formal legislative process. My own view is that I would much prefer to be able to amend orders, but that is not the issue for the House today. We need to consider what can be achieved in the context of an unamendable order accompanied by guidance issued by the Government—guidance that can be reissued.
Aware of these difficulties in procedure, we decided that the mature way to proceed was to approach the Government to discuss our concerns. We did not simply produce those concerns like a rabbit out of a hat and bring them before the House. Discussions have taken place with Ministers in both Houses. It is perfectly right that, in the context of a discussion about access to information, I should make that point clear. I do not know whether the Conservatives have made a similar approach. No doubt we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on that matter.
We approached the Government in order to see what could be done to meet our concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us and, more importantly, the House on the points that I raise. I shall do so as briefly as I can, recognising that, to those who have not lived with this issue, the points may appear a little opaque. I apologise for that.

1331
First, under the provisions, the "key" decisions must be made in public. Under Regulation 8(1)(a), the first type of key decision is one likely to result in a local authority incurring expenditure or making savings which are,
"significant, having regard to the local authority's budget, for the service or function in question".
The term "significant" is not an easy one. Different authorities will inevitably take a different approach to the matter. The Government have referred to the term in their guidance but we are concerned to ensure that there are financial thresholds above which decisions are key; or, to put it another way, below which they can be decided in private. That is what we are seeking to minimise. We need to be satisfied that the levels cannot be set ridiculously high by an individual local authority.
I accept that this is a sensitive matter for authorities. If the Government are able to tell us that they can move forward on this point. I hope that they will also tell us that that will be through consultation with local authorities.
Secondly, a key decision under the regulations is one that is significant for communities in two or more electoral wards. The guidance, which puts a gloss on this, provides that large rural wards can be regarded by a local authority as two wards. I do not think that the two-ward test meets the test of common sense. Frequently, decisions are taken which have a huge effect—but an effect on a limited number of people. I shall not weary the House with examples. I am sure that noble Lords will be able to think of them from their own experience.
My third point concerns draft reports. Local authorities should not be able to get away with using the label of "draft report" on what is substantively a final report. Such a report should be treated as final and should be dealt with in public. Nor should an authority be able to use the urgency procedures, with which I am sure the House will be familiar, to avoid the requirement to make reports available three days in advance when the only urgency is a failure to finalise the report in time for the normal procedures.
My fourth point concerns briefing meetings with officers. Under Regulation 7(2), a meeting is not a meeting to which the access provisions attach if it is for an officer to brief the decision-makers. I ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that it will be made clear that this cannot be used as a get-out. Regulation 7(2) applies to Regulation 7(1)(b) and (c). I am sure the Minister follows what I am saying. I apologise again to other noble Lords. I ask him for a further assurance that any key decision of an executive or of a committee of an executive must be taken in public, subject to the usual provisions about exempt confidential and commercial matters.
My next point concerns matters where there is a change of policy. Under the new executive scrutiny split, policy is a matter for the full council. But policy does not spring fully formed onto an agenda. There is a process of policy-making. The involvement of the public in that policy-making—both access to it and,
1332
because of access to it, ability to contribute to it—is most important. I should like to be assured that a decision by an executive in the course of developing policy proposals will be treated as a key decision.
Finally, I return again to the helpful statements made by the Minister on 24th July 2000. He said that the Government would ensure that their intention,
"for open meetings cannot be subverted by an executive separating a pertinent discussion about a key decision from the meeting where it collectively agrees that decision or through its scheme for delegating formal decision-taking to an individual member of the executive or an officer of the authority. The principle is clear. Where executives meet formally to discuss key decisions, they should do so in public regardless of who will formally take the decision".—[Official Report, 24/7/00; cols. 59–60.]
That is an important point. Decisions should not be delegated through a formal procedure in order to avoid their being discussed and debated in a public and accessible fashion. The guidance needs to be clear on that point.
I turn to the guidance. We have the two documents at the moment—the regulations and the guidance. We already have a provision in the guidance that alters the provisions of the regulations. That relates to the number of wards affected. I hope that the Minister can explain to the House that we are not in the uncomfortable constitutional position of what appears to be a subordinate document over-ruling the primary document—the regulations. I believe that, given the status of statutory guidance, local authorities need to have regard to it. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that no conflict exists between the two? I refer not only to the question of wards, but also as regards the matters I have raised this evening, if they should be included in guidance rather than put on the face of an order.
Finally, we are entering new waters in local government. I believe that, assuming that we finish this evening's proceedings with the regulations in place, it would be reasonable to review them after a short period of implementation and experience. Can the Minister say whether the Government would be prepared to review the regulations; namely, to consult fully and openly and then to revise in short order on the basis of that consultation? If that is so, when? I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to revoke the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Informational (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/3272), laid before the House on 19th December 2000, and to lay before it in their place regulations which would—
(a) improve the definition of "key decisions" such that one of the tests is whether a decision is significant in terms of its effects on people in one ward or a wider area rather than in two wards as defined at present;
(b) specify the minimum financial thresholds for expenditure or savings decisions by an executive above which a decision is a key decision in such a manner as to minimise arbitrary variations between authorities;

1333
(c) require that a decision which makes a significant change to the existing policy or established practice of an authority, even within the framework of matters delegated by that authority to the executive, is a key decision;
(d) remove the conflict between Regulations 2 and 9 so that it is explicitly required that all reports relating to key decisions shall be deemed to be in a final form, and not in draft, at least three clear days before the decision is taken in order that executives shall not be able to avoid advance disclosure of such reports; and
(e) prevent avoidance of the requirement for cabinets to meet in public by barring officers from briefing a full cabinet of a local authority executive in secret unless the subject matter of the briefing is confidential or exempt within the terms of Part VA or Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, on 23rd January, a debate was held in another place on an humble Address calling on Her Majesty to annul the draft Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) Order. It was a long and interesting debate. It would certainly be worth anyone's while to take the time to read it. At the end of the debate, 31 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament—the strength of the party in that House is 46—voted for the prayer to annul the draft order. The Municipal Journal subsequently reported the Liberal Democrat spokesman on local government, Mr Don Foster, to have said that Liberal Democrat Peers were ready to join forces with Tory Peers to veto the regulations.
What happened subsequently is interesting, instructive and—I shall dare to confess this to the House—a lesson to myself. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, beat me to the Clerk's office. She tabled a Motion for a Prayer to annul the order. That stood on the Order Paper for a number of days. In the middle of last week, I indicated to her that we intended to support her Motion. At that time, the noble Baroness gave no indication that there was any intention to approach the Government for further discussions, nor was there any subsequent indication that that had happened. As a result, I was somewhat surprised when, on Monday, that Motion was withdrawn and on Tuesday the Motion that the noble Baroness has moved this evening was tabled on the Order Paper. In the circumstances, I should have thought that I would have been entitled to be told that something was going on. However, that being the case, it seemed to me that it was entirely proper to reinstate the original Motion put down by the noble Baroness, but now, of course, tabled in my name. At the appropriate time, I shall ask the House to reject the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Baroness and to support what is now my Motion.
I have received briefing material on this matter from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which considers that the regulations as drafted are in need of significant improvement. I also received briefing
1334
material from the Newspaper Society, which identified three notable areas of weakness. The Society of Editors shares those concerns and spoke of the possibility of dubious interpretation of the precise wording of the regulations. I am bound to say that the speech of the noble Baroness supported those concerns. Furthermore, they mirror completely my own concerns about the regulations.
It was interesting to note an article in the Local Government Chronicle of 22nd January, under the joint authorship of George Jones, Professor of Government at the London School of Economics, and John Stewart, Professor of Local Government at Inlogov, a part of the University of Birmingham. These gentlemen are two of the foremost authorities on such matters. The article commences by saying that:
"The Local Government Act 2000 is a piece of bad legislation. It is a classic example of central prescription based on no real evidence".
It then concludes by saying:
"How much better it would have been for the Government to have allowed innovation and not assumed it knew the form the innovation should take. The experience so far suggests the centre does not know best".
That sentiment is echoed by councils and councillors up and down the country.
On the subject of our present debate, the authors state that:
"Generally the consequence could be to drive decision making away from the public arena of the cabinet to the privacy of the individual decision maker, sometimes after private discussions by the cabinet".
I shall not embarrass the Government by continuing to quote from that article. However, once again, it is worth everyone's time to read it.
Having made much of the need to break down obsessive and unnecessary secrecy in government, which includes local government, the Government are hoist by their own petard. As the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, makes clear, the draft regulations before us are almost as full of holes as Gruyere cheese. Our problem lies in how best to tackle this difficulty. However appropriate may be the Motion brought forward by the noble Baroness—I do not quarrel with its detail—if it were passed, all that it would represent is an opinion of this House. The draft regulations, with all their flaws, would in any event come into force. The Government need not do anything else. Political reality, given the imminence of a possible general election, suggests to me that this is what will happen. That is the reason why I ask the House to reject the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness.
On the other hand, if the House supports my Motion for an humble Address praying against the draft order, and it succeeds, then we shall have the certainty that the Government will be obliged to bring forward revised orders and thus we shall have created an opportunity for improvement.
The Minister may well try to argue that there is no time to allow this to be done. I do not accept that argument. It would not take very long for suitable revisions to be made. If such revisions were published

1335
and a revised order then laid before the House, local government would do what it has always done—and, indeed, what it is doing at present. It would try to work within the draft regulations, on the blithe assumption that they would be approved, which would almost certainly he the case. Indeed, that is happening already. If one visits local authorities up and down the land, they have the draft regulations and are looking at how they need to alter their procedures in order to comply. Even if the new draft regulations had not been approved, local authorities across the country would do their best—as they always have done—to work within the intentions of Parliament.
I accept that the Minister could withdraw his draft order, although I believe that he would have some difficulty with that as regards Members of his own party in another place. However, if he were to do so, then I would not need to press my Motion for an humble Address. In the event that he does not, I shall find it necessary to press my Motion to a vote.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I had the privilege of chairing the pre-legislative Joint Committee which examined the draft local government Bill from which the Local Government Bill sprang, which in turn gave birth to these regulations. In that report—from which there were no dissenters—we stated in an early paragraph that we considered that the objectives of the Bill, to promote efficiency, transparency and accountability, were laudable. As a committee, we saw merit in the inclusion of a clause in the Bill to state this purpose.
In its response, the Government declined to include such a clause, stating that they had set out the objectives very clearly in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Sadly—and I genuinely mean sadly—I feel that that has not come through in the regulations before your Lordships' House today.
I am not one of those who is implacably opposed to the notion of cabinet government in local government. Nor do I oppose the ability of a cabinet to meet in private and receive advice within the formal structure of the local authority, provided that decisions are made openly and the basis of those decisions is made clear. In this regard, we seem to be making the question of whether or not decisions should be made in public extraordinarily complicated, rather than relying on the simple exemptions set out in regulation 21, which have formed the basis of similar judgments for local government in the past.
For me, the issues which cause problems with the regulations relate to the definition and description of documents that can be available for inspection. If a decision is made on the basis of advice contained in a document, and that document can be excluded from public scrutiny by virtue of being labelled a draft, there is a clear opportunity for the inventive to circumvent the system.
Indeed, you did not need to be inventive under the old provisions of local government. When I was in local government, I have done precisely that. The difference was, of course, that the decision was not
1336
made at that time by the body considering the draft report; the decision had to be made in public on the basis of final reports. There is a clear difference between a draft which is under consideration and upon which no decisions have yet been based and a draft which has been acted upon. In the latter case, there ought to be no exemptions at all. Whether authorities should take decisions on the strength of draft reports is another question.
I also read the regulations to say that they exempt from publication advice from political advisers. That is understandable. But if the executive decision, or the individual executive decision, is not supported by any other advice, should it not then become public? The recording provisions require details of rejected alternatives to be set out. So there clearly could be a situation where officers' advice is rejected, their report is published, but, if the decision had been taken on the strength of political advice, there would be no published report to support that decision. Were there regulations to ensure that this was not the case, I doubt if any decisions would then be taken on party political advice alone.
On these matters alone, I would ask the Minister to think again and to redefine these regulations. With great regret, I have to say that I do not believe that the regulations as drafted will achieve the transparency we all sought to achieve in a new, invigorated system of local government.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I wish to add my strong support to the case so ably made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to respond because, at the moment, they are party to new arrangements which will mean that more issues will be discussed and decided in secret in councils up and down the country.
My main purpose in speaking is to emphasise the importance of openness and access to the democratic process. At a time when we can see clear evidence that the public's trust in politicians is at a very low level, it must behove us all to do nothing to add to that mistrust. It is clear that the Government understand the concerns expressed by Members of another place, by Members of this House and by people in the wider world. We know that the Minister gave promises during the passage of the legislation last year, and we find it regrettable that the regulations are not as strong as those promises.
As matters stand, I believe that we have now a combination of local discretion and loose definition which will mean that the public are unlikely to become aware of many decisions affecting them until those decisions have been made. We are all rightly concerned about the low turn-out in elections and the lack of interest in local government. Recent government announcements have emphasised—and we agree—that there must be a bottom-up approach.
My practical experience over a dozen years in local government in Southampton showed me how important it is to be open and accessible. Councillors who were not on committees were allowed to make

1337
their case, as were the public. They put their case and they helped with small and large decisions. Indeed, on occasions, it gave them a thirst for battle at the polls. I think many of them thought they might do a better job. I and others encouraged people to take part in the democratic process. In my ward, the turn-out was often higher than in other areas.
In short, openness and access assists people to participate in the local democratic process. That is at the heart of what we are discussing today. I fought with others in the 1980s for open government. I never thought that at the beginning of the next century I would be fighting that battle again. I hope that the Government will see the error of their ways, answer some of the questions raised today and do something to improve on their promises of last year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful for the interest shown in the debate. I recognise that there has been concern around the country and that noble Lords in the Chamber for the debate reflect some of that concern. I am prepared to respond to those concerns. I am particularly gratified to see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his place tonight. I think that the whole House will share that sentiment.
The Government absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said about transparency and accountability, and with what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said about the need to ensure that the public have faith in these processes. However, we are facing an argument from the Opposition Benches and, perhaps, to a certain extent, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. It is argued that these regulations will lead to greater secrecy and less accountability, whereas the opposite is the case. It was also argued that the annulment of these regulations, as proposed quite explicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would lead to a better situation, whereas I would argue the exact opposite.
Let me make three initial points. First, if these regulations are annulled, the position will be simply that there will be no requirement whatever on councils to be open. It is not the case that without these regulations councils will be unable or prevented from adopting executive arrangements—of course they would not be. Parliament has given them the powers and the duties to do so. Nothing we do today will change that. Removing these regulations in the way suggested by the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would simply have the effect that, when councils adopt executive arrangements, it would be left entirely to them and their executives to decide what is open and what is to be done in secret, thereby maximising the possibility of abuse and secrecy.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am absolutely fascinated. The Minister appears to be implying that if the Prayer against these regulations succeeds, the Government will then do nothing. I find that remarkable in the light of the unanimous view around
1338
this House, as I understand it, that we want the maximum openness and proper regulation. What we do not want is inadequate regulation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am simply pointing out that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be a reversion, a regression, to the status quo; and the status quo is not appropriate for the new structure of councils. In other words, what the noble Lord seeks is impossible within the provisions of the Act. In so far as we were to go down that road, it would lead to fewer requirements on councils to pursue their decisions openly and to greater abuse. What the Government did in such circumstances would obviously be a matter for us; we should have to consider the situation. But the straightforward effect of what the noble Lord intends to do tonight will lead to more secrecy and more abuse.
We recognise that there is anxiety around the country, some of which is reflected in the House tonight. The reason is that some councils—councils of all political persuasions; I am not trying to make a party-political point—during the transition to the new arrangements, in trying to find new ways of working within the existing laws, have frankly become more rather than less secretive. We deplore that. The Government have consistently condemned such behaviour, whatever political party is in power in the town halls and county halls. But it has happened—and it has happened under the existing law, the very status quo to which the noble Lord wishes to return.
Thirdly, throughout the preparation of the regulations and the guidance on which we are now working, we have been careful to consult people widely and to listen to people's concerns and ideas. We do not pretend that what we have got is perfect. We have been grateful for other people's advice. We have been grateful that we have been able to discuss with our Liberal Democrat colleagues. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests, we believe in discussing these matters with political colleagues. In this context I am prepared to regard the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as a colleague; however, he and his noble friends did not seek to discuss ways through this, whereas the noble Baroness did. As a result, I believe that we have reached some understanding as to how the guidance should be drafted, which is a sensible mode of carrying on consensual democracy. If the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, wishes to stay outside that consensual democracy, that is a matter for him and for his party. It is all very well for his colleagues in another place to take votes on these matters because the consequences of what they do do not matter. The consequences of what is done here, were the noble Lord to win this vote, do matter. It is important, therefore, that posturing should not be undertaken. We believe that as a result of discussions with the Liberal Democrats and with others we have reached a more sensible outcome.
Part of that is to indicate that if we have not got the matter right, we have a mechanism for looking at it again. We shall review and consult on the operation of the regulations and, as appropriate, amend them

1339
12 months after the councils have begun to operate executive arrangements. To respond to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in practice, that means about June 2002.
The regulations provide the regime of openness and they provide for the executive arrangements. I remind the House that there are certain areas around the country in which anxieties have been expressed and which are not covered by these arrangements—the quasi-judicial functions of the council, in deciding planning applications, for example, are not matters for the executive and are therefore covered by the existing arrangements. There is no change in that situation.
What will happen under these arrangements is that, for the first time, decisions will be notified well in advance. For the first time, papers relating to key decisions will be available as soon as they are finalised and, in line with the current regime, they will have to be available at least three clear days in advance. For the first time, key decisions to be taken by officers will be subject to the same access to information requirements as decisions to be made by members under current arrangements. For the first time, the legislation includes an explicit requirement that substantive discussion of key decisions to be taken collectively is held in public as well as at the formal decision-making meeting—in the past, in councils of all persuasions, this may occasionally have been a rubber-stamping operation. That is an extension of openness. It provides access to information; it is not a restriction.
The noble Lord made much of the fact that on occasions an executive can meet in private. He seeks to contrast that with the position under the existing Part VA. But that is not a direct comparison. Such meetings can take place and, by the noble Lord's own admission when he referred to the current practice of secret councils, they do take place. Under Part VA it is entirely possible for there to be private meetings. But what we are trying to ensure is that key decisions are subject to public meetings. The decisions that are not key decisions under the new arrangements and the new guidance are decisions which officers routinely make, currently without any public papers and without any record of those decisions.
The noble Baroness raised a number of points. We share her aim, and I understand some of her concerns. She raised, for example, the question of financial thresholds. I want to make it clear that we shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, be consulting on our definition of appropriate thresholds. We intend now to revise our guidance and make clear our intention to consult on thresholds and, in the light of that, to include the guidance indicating the thresholds for service or function budgets above which any likely expenditure of savings would make a decision key.
The noble Baroness made a point about one ward making a significant decision rather than two wards; and she mentioned the issue of draft papers, briefing meetings with officers and decisions which alter policy or established council practice. We understand and sympathise with those concerns. We believe that the
1340
regulations and the guidance will deliver what the noble Baroness is seeking. Nevertheless, following the discussions that we have had and taking into account the points she makes, we shall be revising the guidance to make it more robust on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, raised the issue of draft reports and claimed that the regulations make it possible for reports never to see the light of day simply by keeping the reports in draft form. That is not possible under these regulations. Regulations 9(1) and 11(3) require papers to be made available at least three clear days before a decision is taken. That cannot be got round by claiming that a decision was made on the basis of a draft report.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but will he expand a little on that answer? Part I of the regulations states that,
"'document' means any report or background papers, other than that only in draft form, taken into consideration in relation to an executive decision".
As I read the regulations, in no way is that qualification removed if the draft documents are used in connection with the making of an executive decision or an individual executive decision.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, even under existing procedures a decision cannot be made on a report that is not a permanent report. The guidance will make that clear. Therefore, one cannot get round the regulations by taking a decision on a draft report and not issuing the draft report in accordance with the "three days" guideline.
The noble Baroness asked me to indicate clearly the status of the guidance to which I have referred and which will elaborate on the regulations. It is guidance to which, in law, councils must have regard. The regulations in a sense set the minimum standards; the guidance builds on that and provides for the approach. The guidance and the regulations cannot contradict each other—which was the other point raised by the noble Baroness. Councils could depart from the guidance only if they could show well reasoned grounds for so doing. That clarifies the relationship. There can be no conflict. Councils must follow the guidance unless they have reasonable grounds for departing from it.
The noble Baroness referred to our debates in July and to what I said about formally delegating powers to an individual member or to an officer for decision. I stand by what I said in July. These regulations will not allow councils to get around a situation by delegating the powers to an individual. The process of delegation cannot get around the requirements for openness where the substantive decision is taken.
I submit that the regulations, taken together with the proposed guidance under the regulations which I have given an indication of tonight, far from creating a new culture of secrecy will restrict greatly some of the circumstances in which secrecy has in the past been achieved and will lay the foundation of a new regime

1341
of efficiency, transparency and accountability. I commend the regulations as they stand to the House and ask the House to resist attempts to annul them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he accept that he is in breach of his own pleading for openness? At no time has there been any indication to me or to anyone else on my side of the House that there would ever be any attempt to arrive at a consensus approach to this issue. One might reasonably have thought that if that was the intention it would have happened, but it has not. I regret that. The Minister has said that he will bring forward revisions and guidance. He has not put a time-scale on that action. I cannot say at this stage that I am satisfied with the situation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who speaks as an ex-leader of a local authority. He knows the right and wrong ways of going about these matters and what is what. His contribution was helpful.
I apologise that I have not been able to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, over the course of the past few days—I hope that my Motion is a clear enough indication of how our minds are working—I have been much involved elsewhere, but I certainly did not intend any personal insult to him. He said that my speech supported his arguments. I am delighted to hear that. When I first raised this issue during the course of the Bill by way of an amendment the speakers were my noble friends Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer and Lord Tope. The Minister replied. There was no speaker from the Conservative Benches. With, I think, six exceptions—I may be wrong—on the Vote at the end of the group the Conservatives stayed in their places and did not vote. I also note that what we have heard from the noble Lord is opposition but no positive proposal.
I thank the Minister for the assurances that he has given tonight. They are real assurances, not just expressions of understanding. We on these Benches want to achieve improvements now. I believe that on the basis of the assurances we shall do so. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have already had sufficient debate. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper..
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 19th December 2000, be annulled (S.I. 2000/3272).—(Lord Dixon-Smith.)
8.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jopling, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Bell, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blackwell, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bowness,L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montrose, D.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Naseby, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Fookes, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Freeman, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selborne, E.

Geddes, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Stewartby, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Addington, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Eatwell, L.

Andrews, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Avebury, L.

Ezra,L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barker, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Berkeley, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bragg, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brennan, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brookman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Burlison, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hamwee, B.

Chandos, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

Crawley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Desai, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

1343

Hoyle, L.

Rea, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Rennard, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Irvine of Lairg. L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jannerof Braunstone, L.

Roper, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sawyer, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Layard, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Lea of Crondall, L.

Serota, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Thornton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Tomlinson L

Morgan, L.

Tope, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northover, B.

Uddin, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Parekh, L.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Walmsley, B.

Puttnam, L.

Warner, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Razzall. L.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Slaughterhouses
8.23 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they expect to implement the recommendations made by the Maclean report concerning the costs of inspection and regulation of slaughterhouses.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by expressing some sympathy for the Minister who on top of his health portfolio has been landed with responsibility for the Food Standards Agency. He has, therefore, to immerse himself in the history of the slaughterhouse regulations and is responsible for hospitals and slaughterhouses. I only hope that he does not get his files muddled!
I express my thanks to the Government Whips' Office for allowing me to have this debate today. It comes at an opportune moment. The slaughterhouse industry and the Food Standards Agency are in the middle of a consultation period. I hope that this short debate will inform the Government of the industry's concerns about the Food Standards Agency's proposals while there is still time to make the necessary changes before the deadline of 1st April.
This is not a party political issue: it is about getting the matter right. I have no right of reply so I thank all noble Lords who will speak. It is good of them to have stayed this long. I also give the Government credit for having listened to the arguments on this issue, although somewhat late in the day. Powerful arguments have been made over the past two years to
1344
consider afresh the way in which the slaughterhouse industry has been regulated. I do not propose to revisit the history of the introduction of the Meat. Hygiene Service, and so on. Noble Lords who will speak are well seized of those points. I turn to the main issues that we should address.
Last summer the Government commissioned the Maclean taskforce under the chairmanship of Colin Maclean. The key point we must remember is that Maclean (if I may use that shorthand) recommended that slaughterhouses should be charged the lower of either the standard charge or their actual inspection costs where those would be lower. Maclean recommended levying the lowest of all the charges. We must bear that in mind.
Maclean reported in June. In November of last year the Government agreed that they would accept in full the recommendations of the Maclean report. I recognize—as I hope that the Government do—that they have taken on a substantial financial commitment. The industry should be duly thankful that the Government have taken the right decision. It will be a great relief to all those whose lives and jobs would have been affected adversely by possible regulation of the slaughterhouse industry had the Government not taken those arguments on board.
Having said that, it seems somewhat churlish to look this apparent gift horse in the mouth. However, we have serious reservations about the draft proposals of the Food Standards Agency. If they are implemented as proposed in the draft regulations, the measures will have the opposite effect to what the Government intended—that is, to reduce the charges for inspection of small and medium-sized slaughterhouses. The Food Standards Agency seeks powers to impose penal hourly charges on top of the standard charge. That would take us back to the unfortunate situation which threatened the survival of small and medium-sized slaughterhouses before the Government's decision to introduce and underwrite standard charges.
In the draft statutory instrument at Annex A of the consultation document, the Minister will see that sub-paragraph (9) contains the draft of a proposed new paragraph 8A. As it stands, new paragraph 8A is a disaster. Its effect in principle is to allow the Food Standards Agency, or the Meat Hygiene Service which will operate on behalf of the Food Standards Agency, to charge what it likes. For example, heading (a) refers to,
"higher inspection costs due to a particular lack of uniformity in the animals for slaughter".
That could mean that any animal coming into a small slaughterhouse would be subject to new paragraph 8A. The Meat Hygiene Service operatives could decide that it was a non-standard animal: that it was not part of a group of 20 animals of the same size, shape, breed or colour; and that therefore they would charge more for it. That would nullify the benefits of the proposals which the Government have agreed to in accepting the Maclean report.
I shall not refer to each heading but new paragraph 8A is completely unacceptable. It would penalise older plants—that comes from 8A(2)(b). Are we going to allow only new plants to operate? It would penalize remote plants—that is a quote from the draft statutory instrument. It would penalise plants operating outside the hours of 6.30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Above all, 8A(2)(h) is very damaging. It reads:
"any other reason like those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g) above that causes the Agency increased costs".
That is a dangerous catch-all provision, because it would allow the Meat Hygiene Service inspectors to go down to the pub after inspecting a plant, decide that they needed to charge a little more and work out how to do it. That provision gives them the freedom to do whatever they like whenever they like.
I think that the industry accepts—it certainly should accept—that the Meat Hygiene Service should be protected from loss of revenue due to abuse of the system by rogue operators. That is only reasonable, but Maclean provided for that. However, the draft regulation would impose standard charges plus costs. That is not what Maclean recommended. It is also not the recommendation of the committee that I had the honour to chair, commissioned by Honest Food, because it would give the Meat Hygiene Service the unfettered power to charge whatever it wished for its services for whatever reason. Operators would have to accept the subjective judgment of Meat Hygiene Service inspectors.
That proposed power would be compounded by the fact that there is no appeal mechanism. I have a letter from Sir John Krebs, the chairman of the Food Standards Agency, which says that there should be a proper appeal mechanism and that he is going to put one in place. There is no mention of that in the draft regulations.
It is self-evident that any system that has the power that is vested in the Food Standards Agency—the power to deprive people of their livelihoods if they close slaughterhouses—should have an effective and speedy appeals mechanism. I ask the Minister to understand that there are serious concerns about that aspect of the draft statutory instrument.
Time is short. The consultation period ends next Wednesday. The provisions have to be implemented by 1st April this year. The Food Standards Agency is aware of the strong concerns that have been expressed by the industry. It may be sympathetic to them, but I am not sure. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House and the industry that those concerns will be met and a satisfactory solution will be found. We are so close to getting it right after a very long battle that it would be a disaster if we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at this very late stage.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend. I thank him for bringing this crucial issue to the attention of the
1346
House. He has asked the Government how they expect to implement the recommendations in the Maclean report.
The opening paragraph of that excellent report encapsulates the essence of the European dilemma in three sentences of executive summary. Maclean finds that the present meat inspection regime needs to be replaced and that the Government, vets and meat industry experts agree, along with several member states and a number of senior Commission officials. There is clearly agreement on the issue. He concludes that everyone concerned recognises,
"that it will take some years to effect the required changes in EU legislation".
The meat inspection regime has been the subject of many and varied debates, discussions and meetings in Westminster and Whitehall. It is of great interest to those involved in meat production. The total man hours spend on that important topic surely deserve greater attention than,
"some years to effect the required changes".
That is why I welcome the debate.
Back in December 1999, the meat industry red tape working group said:
"Meat hygiene service charges are punitive and rising out of control"
The Meat and Livestock Commission report concluded that charges in Great Britain were significantly—I emphasise that word—higher than in most other member states. It is clear from recent events over the importing of German beef that some inspection regimes are not efficient enough. The Maclean report notes that, in at least some member states, meat inspection charges are not collected or are otherwise subsidised, possibly contrary to EU rules. I in no way suggest that we should break those rules, but I do not believe that we should impose even greater costs and increases on our hard-pressed abattoirs and producers.
The Government finally recognised that there is a problem. In last November's rural White Paper, they highlighted the fact:
"We are providing new, additional aid worth £8.7 million in 2001–02 in respect of small and medium-sized abattoirs".
My noble friend referred to that earlier and I, too, welcome it.
If the Government realise that there is a problem, why have they brought forward a draft statutory instrument that, in part, makes no sense? It introduces an imperative with the word, "shall". Paragraph 8A is incomprehensible, muddled and—although I am no authority—appalling English. What does higher costs due to "special travelling times" mean? What does,
"longer waiting and otherwise non-productive periods"
mean? Longer than what?
Finally there is the catch-all of paragraph 8A(2)(h), which says:
"any other reason like those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g) above that causes the Agency increased costs".

1347
Why have (a) to (g) when there is the pièce de resistance of (h)? I do not mean that flippantly. The Government will have to reconsider 8A, which is a nightmare.
The draft statutory instrument has taken the Government five months since the publication of the Maclean report, which itself was produced in a mere five weeks. As others have said, the report is a model of insight, clarity and common sense. It is seven weeks until the date of implementation, so the Government have plenty of time to rewrite their awful draft and bring it before the House.
In points 10 and 11 of the report, Maclean suggests a legal way in which the Government may contribute to the cost of meat inspection to protect the industry from the loss of small and medium-sized abattoirs. The report says:
"It would be perfectly legal for the UK Government to contribute to the costs of meat inspection in order to help the industry".
I had understood that the Government had stated their support for that proposal. I was seriously concerned to learn of the FSA proposal contained in the statutory instrument. Is not that a U-turn by the Government? Will the Minister confirm that there was a meeting last month with Food Standards Agency officials, vets and members of the industry? Will he confirm their disquiet at the proposals in the draft?
The CLA briefing says:
"We arc dismayed that these may have serious financial consequences for the small and medium-sized abattoirs whose interests the Maclean inquiry and subsequent report were intended to address".
Standard charge plus additional cost was not—I repeat, not—what the Maclean report recommended. Yet, that is now proposed in the statutory instrument.
The employment of fully qualified vets to carry out tasks well suited to lesser qualified but highly trained auxiliaries is also mentioned in the Maclean report at page 13. It is a costly waste of a scarce resource. If it is not possible to have the rules amended quickly, will the Minister and the Government consider funding the difference between the charge for auxiliaries and that for vets in anticipation of any rule change?
Will the Minister also consider arranging training courses which would enable auxiliaries to gain further qualifications and be upgraded to a level which would free up some of our fully qualified vets? Indeed, I am sure that the Minister knows that one problem which we experience in this country is a shortage of vets to carry out that particular type of work. We are reliant on vets coming in from abroad.
Maclean has much to say about those costs. Indeed, a large part of the problem lies in the varied, and in some cases excessive, rates that are charged for the services of MHS personnel. Large abattoirs are charged £29.13 per vet per hour. Therefore, if we assume that such vets complete a 35-hour week with an additional average of five hours' overtime charged for travelling time, such a vet is probably worth something in the region of £1,165 per week or some £60,580 per year to the Meat Hygiene Service.
1348
Small abattoirs arc charged £40.50 per hour, but sometimes charges of up to £60 have been reported. It is harder for vets who work across a number of locations to charge for a full week. However, even if they manage to work for only 30 hours, that is worth, let us say, £1,215 per week at £40.50 per hour. If vets receive 50 per cent of that sum of £1,200 a week, they will receive an annual salary of over £31,000. However, I have been given figures which indicate that the Meat Hygiene Service is employing foreign vets at a much lower cost. Perhaps the Minister can supply the payment range used. Can he also confirm the qualifications of some of those foreign vets?
If we assume that 20 per cent of the £1,200 per week is spent on vet-related costs, national insurance, pension, travel costs, and so on, that still leaves some £360 per week per vet accruing to the Meat Hygiene Service. If there were some 500 vets—I suspect that there are many more—they are contributing just under £10 million to the overheads of the Meat Hygiene Service.
Surely that is a great deal of money for running the overhead element of an organisation which manufactures nothing and markets nothing. Apart from the need for vets and inspectors, surely it could be run by accountants or a small secretariat. Instead, the Maclean task force was told that the headquarters and regional offices are charged to the meat inspection service at a cost of some £5.8 million per annum.
I believe that the allocation of that charge to meat inspection should be queried. However, I want to ask the Minister the following questions. How is the £5.8 million made up? Who is employed in those places and what do they do? How much do they cost? And who, finally, controls them? Is it a case of "jobs for the boys" or does someone keep an eye on the running of the service? Great concern exists in the industry that costs are escalating.
If it is not possible to keep the present practice as a base line, it would be sensible to try. It could be varied by negotiation with all interested parties. As my noble friend said, a rapid, independent appeal service must be established to deal with small disagreements. And there should be a totally independent arbitrator to whom the more complex and difficult cases can be referred.
The Minister must surely understand that, as it stands, this draft instrument cuts right across everything that the Government have been saying—and in which they believe—about the need for farmers to diversify and about their willingness to support small rural enterprises. Indeed, it cuts across the very foundations of the rural White Paper. Perhaps I may quote from that document again. John Prescott said in his foreword:
"Our vision is of a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside",
8.44 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for asking this question this evening. I also owe him a debt of

1349
gratitude for so ably chairing the independent inquiry into Misregulation of the Meat Industry and its Consequences. His committee's inquiry was funded by the Countryside Alliance and published by Honest Food, an organisation of which I am chairman. I also declare an interest in that my husband and I rear Black Welsh Mountain sheep for meat. We farm in Worcestershire, where only one abattoir now remains.
We may have a new Food Standards Agency but we still have the same Meat Hygiene Service. Its offices may be new, but its personnel are the same. Despite all the effort that has been expended in an attempt to point to the fundamental problems that have arisen between the abattoir and cutting plant owners and managers and the official veterinary service, those responsible for drafting the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2001 seem to be hell bent on destroying all the small and medium-sized operations.
The Meat Inspection Charges Task Force, under the chairmanship of Colin Maclean, was set up, as has been said, following the report of the Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group, chaired by Robin Pooley. Both those reports tended to focus upon the effects of supervision of abattoirs and cutting plant and the charges imposed by the Meat Hygiene Service. Almost as an aside, they reflected upon the effects that closure of small and medium-sized abattoirs would have upon meat production. Maclean stated that his group did not have time to investigate the validity of the claims that have been made to government over a considerable period of time.
When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, to chair the Honest Food inquiry, his brief was to look at the effects of regulation upon the whole of the specialist meat production spectrum, from the birth of the animal on the farm to the arrival of some part of its anatomy on the plate. It is interesting to note that, even with that wide brief, it became clear that the survival of the whole of this sector depended upon the existence of small and medium-sized abattoirs sited within reasonable travelling distance.
I believe that it is worth quoting from the summary of their report:
"However, the most serious problem that is facing the entire meat industry is the inspection of slaughtering and slaughterhouses. The existing system of inspection, involving as it does the constant presence of veterinarians and meat inspectors, has placed an unbearable burden on the slaughtering industry, particularly on the small and medium sized cutting plants. The problem has been compounded by the charging structure, which is based on time rather than number of animals slaughtered. Many plants have already closed down, creating difficulties for smaller and organic farmers, butchers and consumers, multiplying environmental and animal welfare problems. Full veterinary coverage with attendant charges is due to be imposed on 1 April 2001. This will have disastrous consequences for the slaughtering industry and for the entire meat and livestock sector as well as the rural economy in general with detrimental effects on the environment, animal welfare and consumer choice in both town and country".
1350
When asked about the Better Regulation Task Force recommendations during his evidence to the Honest Food inquiry on 20th June 2000, Mr Geoffrey Podger, chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, told the committee:
"I think it equally fair to say that we"—
that is, the Food Standards Agency—
"are concerned as a public body to meet our obligations to those who are affected by our regulatory regime. Part of that is, without doubt, both providing proper times for consultation, and also providing proper transitional periods for implementation".
The Maclean report was published in June 2000. On 15th January 2001 the stakeholders were presented with a draft statutory instrument for consultation. Responses are required by 14th February 2001 in order that the statutory instrument may be laid in Parliament on 12th March. That is in clear breach of the first assurance given by Mr Podger on 20th June. There can be no excuse for allowing only 23 days for consultation when the Meat Hygiene Service has had more than six months to think about the form of the draft.
I understand that the statutory instrument is to be implemented on 2nd April 2001. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me whether the revised charges are to be levied from that date. If they are, the second of Mr Podger's assurances is breached. The statutory instrument allows for variations in charges between plants. There must also be agreement on the operational programme for operational times and throughput, as proposed in the Maclean report. If the implementation date is 2nd April, what time is there for agreement to be reached, particularly if there is a dispute between parties? Where, too, is the independent arbitration mechanism, which was recommended in the Maclean report?
It is my understanding that Her Majesty's Government accepted all of Maclean's recommendations. The intention was to change the culture of confrontation and dispute that had developed between the Meat Hygiene Service and the industry to one of co-operation and negotiation. Part of that change will be brought about by the recommendation that charges for inspection would be tailored to individual premises within the parameters laid down by EU directives. Pooley, Maclean, Honest Food and noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and myself, have all stressedthe need for and the importance of an independent appeals machinery that would be brought in to resolve disputes rapidly and efficiently. During the passage of the Food Standards Agency Bill, much of the discussion between the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Hayman, and myself involved that topic.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has already referred to the letter of 4th January 2001 that Sir John Krebs wrote to Dr Szamuely. In that letter, Sir John Krebs said,
"an independent element to the internal M HS appeals mechanism is currently being developed. This will allow anyone who remains dissatisfied with an MHS decision after it has been reviewed internally to appeal and have the case considered independently … Meanwhile, the Agency is arranging for the independent consideration of cases on an ad hoc basis".

1351
That is not satisfactory. I need only whisper the words, "Mead Webber", for the Minister to understand that the ham-fisted and long-winded way in which that "independent appeal" has been handled is a prime example of justice denied. What difficulty is the FSA having in appointing a panel, as recommended in the Maclean report? The matter is very simple. There are appeals and tribunals all over the country on various subjects, but the MHS is having a problem appointing a panel that is separate from its organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have expressed their concerns about the drafting of the proposed statutory instrument and in particular about the drafting of paragraph 8A(2). After all the discussions that we have had in your Lordships' House about the undesirability of the gold-plating of EU legislation by UK officials, I am saddened that once again we have another example of that. Will they never learn? We jokingly say that their lives would be so much easier if there were no small farms, no rare breeds and no farm shops or farmers markets, just a few monocultural large farms; a handful of identical abattoirs that handled uniformly shaped sheep, cattle and pigs; and supermarkets. The latest statutory instrument, unless it is extensively revised, would bring the joke far too close to reality.
The Government accepted the Maclean report in full. I ask the Minister to ensure that the recommendations are implemented in full without any carefully concealed ifs and buts or shalls instead of mays.
The industry wants an end to confrontation and is willing to co-operate if matters are dealt with fairly. Too many of the paragraph 8 proposals rely upon subjective judgments. A speedy arbitration system must be brought in at the same time if the new charges are to be implemented effectively.
8.53 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I, too, start by thanking my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for this timely Question and for his introduction to this short debate.
The noble Lord and both noble Baronesses who have spoken so far this evening dealt adequately with the deficiencies of the draft statutory instrument. I need not say more about that. My noble friend's Question asks the Government,
"how they expect to implement the recommendations made by the Maclean Report".
I shall widen our debate. The Maclean report recommended that the Government should make all haste in getting in place a new risk-based meat inspection regime which would allow more delegation of official controls to auxiliaries. We know very well that that cannot be done in a hurry, however much haste is put into the exercise. That is because, as the Government—or the FSA—have found to their cost, the two directives to which we are required to conform, one of which relates to fresh meat and the other to poultry meat, are specific about the requirement for a veterinary presence. That is why the matter has
1352
become a point of contention. The Government have been helpful and have sought to try to find sensible, pragmatic solutions. However, they were not acceptable to the regulatory body and we now face this sorry saga of having to implement two directives that appear to be inappropriate for the United Kingdom.
That is the problem. The directives, which date back to 1964 and 1971 respectively, may well be appropriate for the Continent of Europe, where the veterinary profession has a different tradition: veterinarians may well be the most appropriate people to do meat inspection. In our culture, which has worked extremely well—at least, it has until recently—meat inspectors are well qualified to inspect meat and could look adequately at the animal on the hoof, when that was required. That is not to suggest that a veterinarian was not always necessary; he certainly would be on occasion. Common sense suggested that if one h ad a specialist working in an abattoir, it would be perfectly possible to give responsibilities—whether they be veterinary or involve meat inspection—to one person, who might be an auxiliary or a veterinarian. The Government were trying to get agreement on precisely that point, but the two directives made that impossible.
I should perhaps declare an interest or an involvement at this point, as a trustee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Trust. Maclean reports in paragraph 40 that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons felt that some of the responsibilities that are presently prescribed, to qualified veterinarians could and should be delegated to meat inspectors. I am sure that that is very sensible advice.
Is it possible in the short or medium term to get the directives altered? I have the honour to chair Sub-Committee D of the European Union Committee. That sub-committee contemplated approaching that matter; perhaps we still should. When the excellent informal report by Honest Food, which is chaired by my noble friend, was produced, we felt that it had posed the very questions that we should have posed. We therefore await the response to that report. The Minister's response at Smithfield was encouraging. However, we have already heard that the draft statutory instrument does not deliver all that we had hoped for and expected.
I return to the overwhelming need not to accept the situation, although I fear that Maclean almost seems to do so. We are told that we have to put up with these two inadequate and inappropriate statutory instruments, which confuse a situation that was previously working reasonably well, at least so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We are told to accept that we have to put more veterinarians in the field than is necessary, that we have to carry out a certain amount of double accounting and that senior meat inspectors, meat inspectors and veterinarians should all follow the same product through the abattoir. That is quite unnecessary and inappropriate.
That prompts us to ask what the purpose of the directives is. It is important that there are directives; there were regulations in the United Kingdom

1353
previously. The directives exist, first and foremost, to protect the consumer. One therefore has to ask whether the directives serve the interests of consumers. Clearly they do not. They add to costs, reduce choice and consumers have made it clear that they do not think that the directives are in their interests.
Do the directives contribute to animal welfare? The opposite is the case. As one closes down the small approachable abattoirs, one becomes involved with animal welfare issues, which we all seek to avoid.
Third and last in the hierarchy of interests that one is seeking to protect through the directive come the interests of the trade: the producers and the meat industry. It is right that they should be regulated and that, whether they like it or not, there should be appropriate regulation. Clearly, the regulations are not appropriate for the producer—it is driving them out of business—or for the meat industry.
That appears to involve a triple whammy. Consumers, animal welfare interests and the industry recognise that we have to conform to a directive that the Government have, with honesty, said is not appropriate for us and is not in our tradition of separating veterinarians and meat inspectors. So I would say very firmly that I hope the Minister will take the advice of the Maclean report and make all haste in putting in place a new risk-based meat inspection regime. In other words, we need to get the directives changed. It does not take very long to change a directive if the will exists to do that. I know that some member states will not see the need for change and will fear that what is proposed is a dilution.
However, we must then ask what assurances can be given that the meat inspectors, who were clearly doing an excellent job before, will continue to do that excellent job if they are allowed to return to a regime which was in existence before. I believe that we should have no difficulty whatever in doing that.
It is really a difference in culture. I suspect that in some of the member states, the concept of veterinarian practice encompasses something which the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would not consider to be part of veterinary practice, but something which would come under the meat inspectors' regime.
So there is a misunderstanding which has led to this sorry story. We must recognise that we are trying to make the system work. The directives are not helping and they need changing. There is no earthly need to sit back and say, "Well, this is the law of the land and we must conform with it". It is for government to change directives when they are not helping anyone and to persuade member states that it is in their interests as well as ours to change them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give us every assurance that the Government will be making haste to get these directives changed.
9.1 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for gaining this debate at this particular time. I am also
1354
very taken with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Selborne in relation to trying to get some of the regulations altered. My remarks are drawn up in the light of the regulations as they are at present.
In discussing the costs of inspection and regulation of slaughterhouses, I must declare a financial interest. As a livestock producer, I know that the one unwritten rule of the game is that if any charges are imposed on the processing sector, they are immediately passed on and deducted from the price given to the primary producer. Those in my position certainly hope that if the Government succeed in reducing those charges, the reverse will happen.
It is not long since the farmers in this country told themselves that they had the most efficient agricultural and livestock production systems in Europe. That has been rather cruelly dispelled as we have become more and more aware of the quickening pace and quantity of production across the rest of the Continent. We have changed our breeds, refined their diets and looked high and low for more efficient means of production. But any benefit that we might have had as a result of all that effort has been stymied by the advent of BSE with its hugely increased slaughter inspection charges and the loss of many of our markets for exports. But now that there is an opportunity to resume more exports within Europe, another hurdle is the weakness of the euro, for however long that is likely to last.
Those economic disasters have been felt equally by the slaughtering and processing industry and your Lordships will be aware that whereas in 1995, there were 495 abattoirs in Great Britain, at present I believe there are only 387. Of those which have closed, 71 were killing up to 5,000 units per annum.
It appears, through the measure that we are discussing today, that the Government are addressing the first of those hurdles which I mentioned. I should add that due to the regulations made for devolution, there is a requirement for separate legal processes in Scotland and Wales to achieve the same ends. I have received a copy of the consultation package from the Scottish division of the Food Standards Agency and, sensibly enough, it exactly mirrors the statutory instrument that is before us. Perhaps that is another dimension to joined-up government that I know the Government are very keen to achieve. I expect that if any modifications are found to be needed in this piece of legislation, that will carry through also to the Scottish wording.
Representatives of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers and the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders Associations attended the same meeting held by the Food Standards Agency here in London that was mentioned by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, as those representing the industry in England. They have voiced to me similar concerns to those expressed at that meeting. Their official response is to be drawn up tomorrow and will no doubt be sent to the Scottish Food Standards Agency as well as to London.
I understand that despite the Maclean task force wishing to look at the problems of small, medium and large operators, the industry is officially categorised as

1355
having only two parts: full throughput plants and low throughput plants. The division is made at the level of a throughput calculated as 1,000 units per annum, which is approximately 20 cattle a week, or their equivalent.
From the indicative examples provided to me by the Scottish Food Standards Agency, the straightforward application of the headage basis to full throughput plants would provide a reduction of anything from 35 to 55 per cent in the current charges. That would probably work out at between £2.50 to £3.50 per unit or cattle beast.
There is also a hidden charge that will be introduced from 1st April when those plants will require an official veterinary surgeon to be present throughout the ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections. At present, if they are in the proximity of other operators, there is room for the vet to move between them as the workload allows. But the fact that they will have to be permanently there will add to the cost of the operator but will not provide any cost savings to the Government.
The extra charges imposed under Paragraph 8A, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, could conceivably, by good management, be avoided in that size of operation. The exception, of course, would be in the case of major equipment breakdowns.
In Scotland, due to the rationalisation that has taken place, a great many of our slaughterhouses are now in that category. The major savings on offer under the Government's proposals come in their application to the low throughput plants where, again, using examples provided by the Scottish Food Standards Agency, plants with a throughput of between 100 and 300 units could have their charges reduced by anything between 60 per cent and 95 per cent, or between £5 and £33 per unit.
In Scotland, there are 12 slaughterhouses and 13 cutting plants that fall into that category, a number of them serving extremely remote communities such as Wick, Stornaway and Elgin. Those operations are particularly vital to their communities and to the welfare of the livestock in their areas, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selborne. They are the ones that will be particularly vulnerable to the extra charges that could be levied under the proposed paragraph 8A. Subparagraph (2)(d) will be called up to encompass extra travelling costs and possibly even overnight accommodation. There would almost certainly be a lack of uniformity in the animals for slaughter and there would certainly be some interruptions to the process for cleaning and disinfecting as they switch from killing one class of stock to another. They may not be able to afford the slickest and latest equipment, and that might be regarded as "technical inadequacies", as in subparagraph (2)(b).
That points to the need for a forum, as many noble Lords have said, where any disputes about extra charges imposed can be aired and representations made. There may not be many businesses to which that exact argument applies in England, except for some in
1356
the far South West. However, the reasons for requiring such a body might differ depending on the circumstances, but it will none the less be important. Can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have to ensure that those who encounter such difficulties can have the benefit of an outside opinion?
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for bringing this important issue before us. Speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I share many of the noble Lord's concerns and I urge the Government to go further than it appears is the current intention.
There are three key issues: achieving high standards in public health, managing animals humanely and supporting our rural economy. First and foremost, we must ensure that we pursue the highest of standards in this part of the human food chain. The recent inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, into the BSE crisis makes it plain that any sloppiness in slaughterhouses can have serious consequences. It charted the chain of events leading to the introduction of the centralised Meat Hygiene Service, pointing out that standards of hygiene in British slaughterhouses provided the case for such action. In 1992 the inquiry quoted Selwyn Gummer reporting to the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in the following terms:
"Slaughter hall floor heavily soiled with blood, gut contents and other debris—no attempt to clean up between carcasses",
and so on.
The inquiry pointed out the need for high standards as shown by the fact that one half of a gram of BSE-infected brain had succeeded in transmitting BSE to a sheep. Carelessness in implementing regulations could have far-reaching consequences. We should never lose sight of the reason for inspection. However, the need for high standards does not mean that the type of inspection, expensive and intensive though it may be, is necessarily of the right kind, which was a point highlighted in the Phillips report and in this debate. Clearly, more needs to be done to ensure that inspection is targeted at real risks and that it does not simply duplicate work already carried out. Of course, the Government are covering the costs of additional inspection resulting from the BSE crisis, but in other areas of inspection they are not picking up the tab and yet that inspection is there largely for public health reasons.
I turn to the issue at the heart of the debate: the demise of the small and medium-sized abattoirs, especially in rural areas. The overheads of small abattoirs are higher than they are for larger abattoirs. As we have heard, the costs of inspection play a large part in this. As the Maclean report makes clear:
"For many small and medium sized businesses, the cost of the required additional veterinary supervision will be unsustainable and many will be forced to close. This will be had enough in itself, but when even the FSA and the veterinary profession admits that 100% veterinary supervision is not necessary for the protection of public health, the forced closure of such businesses becomes nothing short of scandalous".

1357
Does that matter? Yes, it does. If small abattoirs continue to go out of business there will be serious consequences.
I now deal with animal welfare. Animals become agitated if transported for long distances. Quite rightly, in this country we pride ourselves on our humane approach to animal husbandry. We should take such concerns seriously.
We also know how costly and difficult it is for farmers to transport their animals long distances to large slaughterhouses. We must take that seriously, especially given the parlous state of much farming today, particularly in upland areas. We should not add to farmers' costs and problems for no good reason.
The Maclean report makes it clear that small abattoirs provide an essential service in remote areas. They service a substantial proportion of the independent retail shop trade, where they can fulfil the growing demand for traceability and guaranteed provenance, including organic produce. They undertake most of the slaughtering for the ethnic minority community trade and they provide a casualty slaughter service. These abattoirs are particularly vital to small, family farmers and to local markets.
As we have heard, the current system of charging an hourly rate for inspection means that in small plants, where few animals are slaughtered in one day, the cost to the plant per animal slaughtered is much higher relative to that in larger plants, where there is a constant, high throughput. We have long advocated moving to a headage system. We welcome Maclean's proposal that the additional costs of inspection should be borne by the public purse. Services that are accessible to farmers, thus promoting both animal welfare and consumer choice, are public benefits.
As we have heard, the Government's proposals contain serious flaws which surely must be addressed. Recognising the importance of high standards of inspection, the Government should also accept that small abattoirs are an essential link between farm and marketplace. Without support, many of those facilities will be lost. The Government therefore need to go further in meeting the conclusions of the Maclean report.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke for introducing this important topic for debate. Like my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I have to declare an interest as a dairy farmer. This debate is not simply about the future of small, rural abattoirs. It is, by extension, also about the health of the rural economy, consumer protection, consumer choice and animal welfare. In that sense, it is a very wide-ranging topic, which deserves more than a short debate to do it justice.
The past ten years or so have seen a marked contraction in the number of abattoirs in the UK. To say that this has come about as a result of both regulation and market forces is a broad statement of
1358
fact, but it is a statement that glosses over a complex set of changes in the market for British meat. On the one hand, there has been a drive for ever-greater efficiency, led to a large extent by British supermarkets, which has resulted in the establishment of larger plants and the closure of many smaller ones. On the other hand, we have seen a growth in consumer demand for more specialist meat products, which small and medium-sized abattoirs are particularly well suited to supply.
Over-arching all this, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, so well explained, has been an acceptance of the need to ensure the highest standards of meat hygiene. That, as we all know, has come about at a cost. I have heard it said by a number of respected commentators that the sector is currently walking a tightrope in a way it perhaps has never done. The steep rise in inspection costs, particularly over the past two years, has placed the viability of hundreds of businesses in jeopardy. Many have found these costs unsustainable and have ceased trading. The vague but long held suspicion that the costs borne by British abattoirs are at the higher end of the spectrum among EU member states has been borne out by recent evidence. By virtue of the current charging structures, it is our smaller abattoirs that find themselves most disadvantaged.
Nevertheless, the tightrope is still being walked. The advent of higher inspection charges, unwelcome though they have been to the industry, has not yet led to the sort of catastrophic contraction in the sector that many people initially feared. There have certainly been some regrettable losses and closures, but the small and medium-sized abattoir sector is still very significant. It is estimated that it accounts for some 50 per cent of cattle, 60 per cent of sheep and 25 per cent of pigs slaughtered in Great Britain.
The importance of the sector is not simply defined in terms of volumes. The Maclean report praises it for the service that it provides to farmers, to the trade and to—consumers. In that regard, I very much echo everything that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Smaller slaughterhouses are an essential facility in remote rural areas. Farmers and their animals benefit from having shorter distances to travel—not least when casualty animals have to be dealt with—but smaller units also serve local markets. They serve most of the independent retail trade, where there is a demand for traceability and guaranteed provenance. In their ability to offer non-standardised and flexible production, they also supply the smaller end of the catering trade, as well as organic producers and many ethnic communities. That means that the continued survival of small and medium-sized abattoirs is essential if the market for home-produced meat, as we know it today, is not to change out of all recognition.
The ruling by the European Commission that the UK was under-implementing the various meat hygiene directives led to a decision by the Government to increase the levels of veterinary supervision to 100 per cent in all but the very smallest slaughterhouse. Even in the smallest premises there will still be a requirement

1359
for compulsory ante-mortem inspection by the OVS. Colin Maclean's task force recognised that the added costs of those changes, if borne by the industry, would result in,
"the decimation of the sector".
In net terms those additional costs would be in the region of £11 million in 2001–02 which, for certain plants, would involve a near-doubling of inspection charges.
It is greatly to the Government's credit that they have accepted the recommendation of the Maclean task force that they should provide,
"some degree of financial support for the industry".
The additional money on offer for the coming financial year to assist small and medium-size abattoirs is some £8.7 million. It is also welcome that the revised basis of charging set out by the task force has been adopted. With effect from April, abattoirs and cutting plants will be charged the lower of either the standard throughput charges laid down in the EU directive or the actual inspection costs, subject to a specified minimum. For many smaller units, effectively it means that in future they will be charged on a headage basis, not on the basis of time cost. That is a very positive development.
There remain, however, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke so rightly emphasised, a number of uncertainties. The draft statutory instrument sets out a whole raft of contingencies which, should any of them occur, could trigger the imposition of additional charges over and above the standard charge. I have read new paragraph 8A very carefully. I can quite see that the Meat Hygiene Service needs to be protected against the possibility that an abattoir might, for example, take all day to kill only a few animals and that under the proposed charging tariff such costs would not be otherwise recoverable, but the wording of the draft instrument is far from clear. My noble friend Lady Byford rightly pointed out that terms such as "longer" and "frequent" are unexplained and unqualified. There is also the catch-all provision that refers to,
"any other reason like those mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g)".
What exactly does that mean, and who is to interpret that provision?
There are those of perhaps an over-suspicious turn of mind who interpret the draft regulations as being designed more to ensure that the MHS is able to claw back its costs than to help the owners of small abattoirs. This evening we need reassurance from the Minister that the effect of the regulations will not be, as some now fear, to enable the Meat Hygiene Service to give with one hand and take away with the other more or less at will. The effect of that would be a de facto return to time-based charging and in turn, one assumes, the decimation of the sector of which Maclean warned.
There are also some practical worries. Given that all businesses, no matter how small, must comply with legislation that governs holiday entitlement and so forth, many small plants are bound to find themselves
1360
operating for at least part of the year at less than optimum efficiency, for example when one of the team of slaughtermen is on leave. As the regulations are drafted, how can such unavoidable eventualities fail to give rise to additional charges?
The next question is how a dispute arising from this kind of situation, or the interpretation of the regulations, is to be resolved. The Government have rejected the recommendation of the task force that there should be a system of independent arbitration in situations where the MHS and plant owners are unable to agree on an operational programme. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate on the Government's reasons for this. The noble Lord will be aware that the decision has caused considerable disquiet.
Finally, following my noble friend Lord Selborne, perhaps I may ask the Minister to address some longer-term issues. The Maclean report recognises that, despite widespread agreement in the EU on the need to replace the current meat inspection system with something better, any root and branch changes to the EU meat hygiene directives will take some years to achieve. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what the Government's broad objectives are in that regard. I believe that the abattoir sector is unique in the food industry in having to submit to day-to-day inspection and supervision from outside as opposed to being able to police itself. Even if it is not possible to get away from such a system entirely, do the Government believe that a more risk-based approach to meat hygiene is both desirable and achievable? If they do, what kind of regime do they envisage? Is there scope, for example, to introduce a HACCP system in abattoirs on a plant-specific basis? To what extent should the UK press for certain responsibilities currently assigned to vets to be delegated to auxiliaries, as was recommended in the Pooley report? Finally, what is likely to be the tirnescale for change?
The Government's response to the Maclean recommendations have, in large measure, been greeted with appreciation and relief by the industry. But the response still leaves worrying questions hanging in the air. The sector is still walking a tightrope. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide the industry with some strong and unequivocal reassurance.
9.26 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, expressed some sympathy for me as a Health Minister in having to answer this Question, and, indeed, answering for the activities of the Food Standards Agency. Lest the House share that sympathy, I suppose I should confess that, along with my noble friend Baroness Hayman. I was responsible for taking the Food Standards Act through your Lordships' House. So in a sense I am now reaping what I sowed a year or so ago.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for instituting the debate on the costs of inspections and regulation of slaughterhouses. He brings enormous experience and

1361
expertise to the debate. I read with great interest the report of the committee of inquiry which he chaired into the regulation of the meat industry on behalf of Honest Food which is chaired by the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
The report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord emphasised the pivotal role of slaughterhouses in the meat industry and the contribution they make to the rural economy. It also had important points to make about the problems of what is described as a "bureaucratic and overly prescriptive approach to regulation".
It also gave particular emphasis to the role of small and medium-sized slaughterhouses and saw them as having critical importance to the structure of the meat and livestock industry because of the flexibility and geographical spread of those operations. In turn, those were perceived to be crucial to farming, particularly small-scale specialised organic or mixed farming; to the survival of small businesses, such as farm shops and butchers; to consumer choice; to animal welfare; to the rural economy; and to the environment. I say to the noble Lord and other noble Lords that that view is very much shared by the Government.
The Government certainly attach very great importance to the future of slaughterhouses—large, medium and small. They play a vital role, not only in ensuring consumer choice in relation to the meat that customers buy, but also in preserving the fabric of the rural economy.
The Government clearly have recognised the difficulties faced by the meat industry as a result of increased veterinary supervision levels and the associated costs. That is why we have put in place a number of measures to help small and medium-sized abattoirs, including the freezing of hourly rates for Meat Hygiene Service inspectors in 1999/2000, which was worth around £7 million to the industry. In the current financial year the increase has been restricted to 2.2 per cent, in line with the rate of inflation.
The Pooley group, which we set up to look at the burden of cost and regulation that had steadily been allowed to overshadow the industry, made many important recommendations to the Government in December 1999. One of the recommendations was that a task force be set up to look at the issue of meat inspection charges. The Government accepted that recommendation and set up the Maclean group. As noble Lords have intimated, the main recommendation of the group was that the system of charging based on actual costs should be replaced by one based on standard (headage) charges. The Maclean recommendations were not just about a move to a headage system of inspection charges. I believe they were very much a balanced and considered set of recommendations about how we could do this while respecting European law, allowing the industry the opportunity to trade freely and enabling the Meat Hygiene Service to manage its operations efficiently and cost effectively.
1362
That recommendation came with a substantial price tag of around £20 million. It also came with a remarkable consensus of support across all sectors of the industry as well as environmental and consumer groups. The Government have found that resource and announced their intention to implement the recommendations of the Maclean group. That is why the agency is consulting publicly on the proposals related to those recommendations which will lead to a substantial reduction in the level of meat inspection charges paid by the industry. Although the smaller plants will benefit the most, no plant will be worse off than before.
Before I turn to the specific questions relating to the issue of charges and arbitration, I respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earls, Lord Selborne and Lord Howe, about the philosophy that is behind the regulatory system. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government recognise that the current meat inspection is overly prescriptive, bureaucratic and is in need of a radical overhaul. The Government also accept that it should be replaced by a risk-based system of checks, as recommended by the Pooley group and the independent committee of inquiry headed by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke.
On that basis, the Government have welcomed the proposals from the European Commission issued last year to consolidate and simplify food hygiene legislation, as well as moves to modernise meat inspection practices and meat hygiene legislation. The current rules with regard to red meat are over 35 years old—a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
These proposals provide an opportunity for us to establish a consistent, effective and risk-based system for ensuring food production that is proportionate to the risk to public health. Protection of public health is of paramount concern and will underpin our response to the proposals.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the Government believe—and I believe—that responsibility for producing safe food, including meat, should rest unambiguously with the operators and should be based on HACCP principles, while independent scrutiny should provide the necessary assurances that operators' controls are appropriate and effective.
Noble Lords are impatient and see the need for haste. We all understand the process of changing EU legislation and introducing a new system of controls is likely to take some time to achieve. I accept the challenge from noble Lords that the United Kingdom needs to be vigorous in pursuing these issues. I can give them that assurance.
I turn to the issue of additional charges. The Maclean report recognised the potential for some to abuse a new headage-based charge system. The report recognised at paragraph 63 that the Meat Hygiene Service must be able to maintain or improve its current operating efficiencies. Because of that it recommended that the FSA or the Meat Hygiene Service must have powers to prevent meat plants abusing a charging

1363
system based on standard charges. That said, the report also said that the FSA or the MHS should not introduce control mechanisms that would restrict business opportunities or opportunities to trade.
To that end the report recommended that a system be introduced whereby meat plants and the Meat Hygiene Service agreed on an operational programme, with any disagreements being referred to independent arbitration. The report specifically recommended that where plants failed to stick to their agreements the Meat Hygiene Service should be able to recover any additional hygiene inspection costs arising as a result.
In the consultation process, the Food Standards Agency did, as recommended by Maclean, include proposals for additional charges to deal with the kind of abuse that his group foresaw. But, as noble Lords have pointed out, the proposals did not follow the Maclean recommendation of agreed operational programmes backed up by independent arbitration. That was because that was seen as likely to take some time to implement and might possibly require separate legislation. The Food Standards Agency, conscious of the need to get the new charging systems in place as quickly as possible and by the beginning of April this year at the latest, looked at alternative mechanisms for recovering the additional inspection costs.
A number of noble Lords asked specifically about the draft regulations, particularly Regulation 8A. I understand that those proposals were designed to mirror the provisions in the EU charges directive. There were two consequences of that. First, there was a catch-all provision in the proposed Regulation 8A(2)(h) which meant that the Meat Hygiene Service could recover almost any increased cost from a meat plant. I have listened carefully to noble Lords who haw asked the MHS to spell out the implications of the provision. I am also very much aware that many in the industry—perhaps all in the industry—think that that is draconian and gives the Meat Hygiene Service too much power.
The second consequence of the need for speed was that there was no mention of independent arbitration in the agency's proposals. I know that many in the industry are concerned about that too, particularly as the Maclean group specifically mentioned the issue of arbitration. The position of the Food Standards Agency is that these proposals, as they lie on the table, reflect a government commitment neither to over-implement nor under-implement our EU obligations. They also reflect a desire on the agency's part to avoid the necessity of introducing a dispute resolution procedure that potentially could be cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly to operate.
I should like to make a number of points and respond also to the issues raised in the debate. I want to assure noble Lords that this is not a back-door way to nullify the proposals to change the charges proposed in the Maclean report. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of "shall" as opposed to "may" in regard to Regulation 8A(2). I am becoming a connoisseur of "may/shall" debates, but I find myself in the unusual position of having to defend the use of
1364
the word "shall" when noble Lords opposite would no doubt propose the use of the word "may". I am sure that that will be one of the issues that will be carefully considered in the consultation process.
I clearly accept that there has to be a "felt fair" system. It is not the intention for either the agency or the Meat Hygiene Service to have unfettered power in this area. I am also clear that there has to be a proper appeals system. The Food Standards Agency intends to introduce an independent appeals mechanism for the Meat Hygiene Service. That will be consulted on shortly and will be a separate exercise from the current consultation on charges, although once implemented it might be possible to use it for complaints regarding inspection charges. In a sense, however, that will need to be discussed as part of the response to the consultation process.
Noble Lords will appreciate that we are still in the middle of the consultation process. For that reason, some points have been raised to which f cannot respond. This is a real consultation exercise and it is our intention to listen carefully to what is said and for a genuine effort to be made to take on board all the points raised and concerns expressed. I know that the agency is committed to doing that. The Government will wish to ensure that that is what happens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to a meeting with key industry stakeholders. That meeting did take place. I can confirm to her that the industry made its views quite clear on the issues of charges and independent arbitration. I do not believe that the agency could be in any doubt of the views expressed by the industry on those matters.
The consultation exercise will not have run its course until 14th February. No doubt more comments will yet be received. However, I can assure the House that the agency is considering carefully those concerns and is putting together alternative options to present to the Government in due course. Furthermore, I can assure noble Lords that the comments made in the course of our debate tonight will be fully played into the consultation process.
Time is moving on, but I should like to respond to some of the points that have been put to me. Perhaps I may respond to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, by saying that as far as the Mead Webber investigation is concerned, I share her disappointment that that investigation is taking so long to complete. I understand that the Food Standards Agency and the chairman of the investigation panel are pressing for the need to make faster progress. I should like also to comment to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the need for the complex set of changes which has impacted on the number of slaughterhouses. In 1979, there were 975 slaughterhouses in England. By 1997, that number had reduced to 375; by 2000, it had further reduced to 329.
We have had an important discussion. It has given me the opportunity to underline the importance of slaughterhouses and, indeed, to pay tribute to all those who work in the industry. They have a tough and challenging job to do and I for one take my hat off to the men and women working in slaughterhouses. They

1365
make an extremely valuable contribution to the meat industry, to the economy as a whole and, of course, to the rural economy. I also acknowledge the value of small and medium-sized slaughterhouses. The Meat Hygiene Service has no intention or wish to drive such slaughterhouses out of business. If there were any evidence of that, the Government would be extremely concerned about it. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the small and medium-sized sectors of the industry make a major contribution in terms of the number of animals slaughtered. It is important to remember that.
The Maclean report recorded many views on the contribution made by small and medium-sized abattoirs. Although it did not have time to investigate the validity of those claims, it made the point that the decimation of small and medium-sized abattoirs would reduce diversity for the consumer and the efficiency of market clearance in a way that would be detrimental both to the farmer and the consumer. The Government have little argument with that statement. It is also clear that noble Lords do not. That is why we have decided to implement the Maclean report.
In concluding this debate, I wish to assure noble Lords that the current consultation is very much an open process. The Government will listen carefully to the genuine concerns that have been expressed. Ultimately, the Government wish to see a thriving and competitive slaughterhouse market in which the inspection system assures that public health is paramount—I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on that point—but which in the long term is founded on a risk-based system with a fair and sensible approach to charges. In that spirit, the Government will listen carefully to all the comments which have been made by noble Lords tonight.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, although it is not my duty to do so, I thank the Minister for his response.
1366
Perhaps I may ask him about the timetable. He said that the consultations will finish on 14th February and that the Government will then need time to respond to them. Will this have any implications for the proposed draft statutory instrument, or will that go ahead?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is clearly important that the new system of charges comes in as early as possible. The intention is to bring it in on 2nd April to give effect to the benefits it will bring to the industry. We intend to speed on with the consultation process, to ensure that the right decisions are reached in the way that I have suggested, and that the new system will come in on 2nd April.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he recall that, during the debate on the Food Standards Bill, over and over again we asked for a proper appeals system to be set up? We were informed that there was provision for this in the Food Safety Act 1990. Why is it so difficult for a very simple arbitration system to be introduced? One man, one contender, another contender; the man in the middle decides between the two—and what he decides is binding, as Maclean recommended. Why is it proving so difficult when it is essential in view of the stressful nature of work in the industry and the history of confrontation between the two groups of people? Why can it not be brought in at the same time as the statutory instrument?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the word "arbitration" has certain implications in law. That is why this was not produced at the same time as the statutory instrument. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that, whatever the conclusion of the consultation process, there will be an independent system of appeal in which the industry can have confidence.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Self-assessment Tax Returns: Electronic Filing
  Self-assessment Tax Returns: Electronic Filing
  Written Answers: Reference to Published Documents
  Written Answers: Reference to Published Documents
  Speaker's Committee: Minister for Local Government and the Regions
  Speaker's Committee: Minister for Local Government and the Regions
  State Pension Cost Forecasts
  State Pension Cost Forecasts
  State Pension: Current Liability
  State Pension: Current Liability
  Postal Services Commission: Social and Environmental Guidance
  Postal Services Commission: Social and Environmental Guidance
  Northern Ireland: RUC and Prison Service Officers' Pensions
  Northern Ireland: RUC and Prison Service Officers' Pensions
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Arms Prosecutions
  Northern Ireland: Illegal Arms Prosecutions
  Northern Ireland: Arms Decommissioning by IRA
  Northern Ireland: Arms Decommissioning by IRA
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Incidents
  Northern Ireland: Terrorist Incidents
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Recommendations
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Recommendations
  Ms Inez McCormack
  Ms Inez McCormack
  Factortame Litigation: Settlement
  Factortame Litigation: Settlement
  Zimbabwe: UK Funding
  Zimbabwe: UK Funding
  Turkey: Alleged Mistreatment of Prisoners
  Turkey: Alleged Mistreatment of Prisoners