Sitting of 23 January 2001

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

    Turkey
    Ann Clwyd: What representations he has made to the Turkish Government on the treatment of political prisoners and human rights. [145033]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I both raise our concerns on Turkey's human rights record, including the treatment of political prisoners, in our contacts with our Turkish counterparts. We and European Union partners continue to have significant concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression, the incidence of torture and the statutory existence of the death penalty. These concerns were reflected in the accession partnership that received political agreement on 5 December. We raised our concerns about the recent prison operations in Turkey with the Turkish Foreign Minister on 11 January.
    Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that a group of human rights activists have just returned to the United Kingdom from Turkey and that they report massive human rights abuses, particularly among the 1,200 political prisoners who are on hunger strike, some of whom are said to be close to death? Is he also aware that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported the ill-treatment of prisoners, particularly the raping of prisoners with truncheons? Will he confirm that a condition of Turkey's membership of the EU must be a huge improvement in its human rights conditions.
    Mr. Vaz: No Member of the House has done more to champion the rights of minorities in Turkey than my hon. Friend. She deserves the thanks of the House for the visits that she has made and the way in which she eloquently raises issues of concern. I was aware that a group had just returned to the United Kingdom following a visit to Turkey, and I look forward to receiving and reading its report.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we have raised these concerns with the Turkish authorities. Yesterday, I spoke to the Turkish ambassador and I invited him to meet my hon. Friend and any other Member who wishes to see him
    782
    this week to discuss these issues. I know that they are of such concern. I assure her that Turkey will not join the EU until it, like all other applicants, has met the Copenhagen criteria in full. That criteria applied to the United Kingdom and it applies to all other applicants.
    As my hon. Friend has heard today, we agreed on 5 December that human rights was one of the points to be raised in discussions with Turkey. We will continue to raise the issue when appropriate.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: May we have the Minister's assurance that the British Government will not be involved in raking over the coals of what happened in Turkey nearly 100 years ago and that it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy not to recognise the Armenian massacres as genocide?
    Mr. Vaz: Clearly, these issues are sensitive and cause concern. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no change of policy as far as this matter is concerned.

    Middle East
    Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement about the situation in the middle east. [145034]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The rate of violence in the occupied territories has reduced substantially in recent weeks, but it is still at an unacceptable level. I spoke on Sunday to the Israeli Foreign Minister on the eve of his departure to the talks in Taba. I expressed our hope that it would prove possible for agreement to be reached on a text recording the area of common ground established in the talks with former President Clinton.
    At yesterday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers, we agreed to release a further tranche of funds to compensate the Palestinian budget for the withholding of tax receipts by the Israeli Government. We regretted the continuing blockade of the occupied territories, the lifting of which could rekindle confidence in the peace process.
    Mr. Miller: I am sure that the whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that peace is about compromise and that the Clinton plan, which was supported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, offered such a compromise? It was about a painful and difficult series of choices.
    Does my right hon. Friend also agree that Barak offered unprecedented concessions at that point and that it takes both sides to create peace? The rhetoric of Likud might set the process back as would those Palestinians who have lived up to Abba Eban's old doctrine that they are a people who have never missed an opportunity of missing an opportunity?
    Mr. Cook: All the House would want to salute former President Clinton on the immense effort and creativity that he put into trying to find progress on the middle east peace process. I agree with my hon. Friend that the parameters set out by the former President did not offer both sides everything that they wanted. Such a settlement is impossible: a settlement will require the compromise on both sides to which my hon. Friend referred. However,

    783
    I hope both sides will not lose sight of the fact that the security of a peace agreement is far more important than any compromise that is necessary to achieve it.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the middle east continues to be one of the most dangerous and difficult political problems? As there has been a change of President in the United States, will he ensure that he and his Department get in touch with the new Administration so that we work closely with them to bring about a solution, difficult as that may be?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the gravity of the situation. We have always been very concerned that the difficulties within the occupied territories might give rise to greater instability within the region. I am pleased to tell the House that I am going to accept an invitation from Secretary of State Colin Powell to visit him between 5 and 7 February, and that problem will be high on my agenda.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and I returned just today from the occupied territories in Palestine. While there, we met President Arafat, who spoke strongly of his hopes that the 10 days of talks, which he called the intensive marathon, that are under way will bring about a settlement that is acceptable to both sides. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power, with the help of the United States Government, to encourage the parties to reach a just solution? Will he undertake to meet me and my hon. Friend to hear at first hand some of the atrocities that we learned about in the occupied territories, including the disproportionate use of force and questionable terms of engagement for Israel's troops, which led to the killing of a boy from Hussan school in Beit Sahour? Will he also discuses with us how we can raise the matter of the imprisonment of 53 young people who would not be in prison if Israel implemented the UN convention on the rights of the child?
    Mr. Cook: I am aware that my hon. Friend has just returned from the occupied territories and I shall be pleased to hear his first-hand impressions. The United Kingdom supported the Security Council resolution that reflected our grave concern at the excessive use of force in the occupied territories. I am very glad and relieved that the violence on both sides has declined in recent weeks.
    As for supporting the talks, this is the last opportunity for them to succeed in terms of the parameters set out by President Clinton. I hope that that opportunity will be seized. I know that people on both sides of the conflict have an earnest intention to try to reach an agreement. I assured Israel's Foreign Minister that we would do all that we could to support such an outcome, which is why, on Monday, we secured language at the European meeting to give Europe's backing for a settlement.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: It may not be strictly necessary to mention this, but I have a registerable interest in relation to such matters, which is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
    The Secretary of State will, of course, have the support of all hon. Members for the efforts that are being made to cause the talks to be successful, and he is right to applaud the efforts of President Clinton. However, does he agree
    784
    that unless there is recognition of the right of return, as contained in United Nations Security Council resolution 194, then the prospects for a lasting peace will be severely diminished? Is it not time that the old people who hold in their hands the crumbling deeds of their houses and the receipts that they paid for property tax, should have a hope of returning to the homes from which they were driven or expelled all those years ago?
    Mr. Cook: I fully agree with the sentiment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses. The right to return to a Palestinian state was set out by former President Clinton in his attempt to renew the peace process in December. I well understand the strength of feeling on that matter especially in Jordan where nearly half the population are of Palestinian origin. However, at the end of the day, the peace settlement will be a package. It is important that it offers gains to both sides, but I do not know whether it would be wise at an early stage of the talks to identify one single red line among the many elements that will need to be considered.
    Mr. Stephen Twigg: My right hon. Friend is aware of the concern in all parts of the House about the plight of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border. Will he put pressure on the authorities in Iran, Syria and Lebanon so that at least some information may come to light about the plight of the soldiers, for their families, for the success of the peace process, and particularly for security on Israel's northern border?
    Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of the issue to Israel generally, and specifically to the relatives of the three men. When I was in Israel on an earlier visit, I met the relatives of Ron Arad, who has been missing for well over a decade. It is impossible to overstate the distress caused to relatives by the uncertainty about what may have happened to their loved ones. I raised the matter of the three Israel Defence Force soldiers when I was on my recent tour. We continue to pursue it and to take the opportunity of every contact and every channel to try to obtain a resolution of the issue.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that Britain, with its record of support for Israel and its long history of involvement with many Arab states, is uniquely well placed to exert influence in the middle east? Why does he think that people on all sides in the region believe that Britain is failing to live up to its historic role? Surely Britain's foreign policy should be neither a pale reflection of America's, nor simply one voice in a European Union of 15. If the right hon. Gentleman understood a little better what Britain has been, would he not understand a little better what Britain can be, and what role Britain can play in the world as a confident and independent country?
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate the House on the fact that, until now, we have had a sober, non-partisan discussion of a serious issue. It is deplorable that that should be rounded off by a right hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench seeking to reduce it to a party political issue. It is far larger than any party political issue, and I do not propose to respond in the tone or the style of the

    785
    Opposition spokesman. All that he has done is to prove that the is unfit ever to hold the office of Foreign Secretary.

    Greece (Hydra Bilateral Conference)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the recent bilateral conference with Greece in Hydra. [145035]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The first bilateral British-Greek conference, "A New Look at Relations" was held on the island of Hydra near Athens from 13 to 15 October 2000. Two Greek and two British Ministers attended, with 45 other participants, including hon. Members, officials, journalists and other opinion formers. The conference addressed issues of competitiveness, education in a knowledge-based society, and social change in the EU context. The Hydra conference was the flagship event in our bilateral relations with Greece in 2000. It was an enormous success.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hydra conference showed that with the PASOK Government of Mr. Simitis, Greece has made great economic progress, with stability sustained growth, falling public debt and a Budget surplus? As Greece further develops its structural changes, does my hon. Friend agree that the ties between our countries and Governments are stronger than ever, and that Greece provides an excellent opportunity for British inward investment and trade?
    Mr. Vaz: I happily agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his participation in the Hydra conference, and for the way in which he has helped build up relations between our two countries. Twelve British Ministers visited Greece last year. My hon. Friend is right when he says that the economy of Greece has improved enormously under Prime Minister Simitis. The reformist agenda put forward by the Greek Prime Minister has been extremely valuable. British exports to Greece last year were worth £1.1 billion—an increase of 7 per cent. The good relationship with Greece will continue. We are grateful for the steps that the Greek Government have taken to try and find the assassin of Brigadier Saunders. We will continue to work with the Greek Government to ensure that his killer is brought to justice.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: In connection with the murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders, will the Minister outline the assistance that the British Government are giving the Greek Government to apprehend the murderer?
    Mr. Vaz: We have responded tot every request that has been made by the Greek Government. I went over shortly after the assassination, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been there, and every Foreign Office Minister has visited Greece over the past 12 months. In the meantime, Greek Ministers, especially the Home Affairs Minister, have visited our country, asking for help—for example, on the policing aspects and the forensic examination of evidence. We are there to help, and we will continue to help in any way that we can.

    Plan Colombia
    Mr. Paul Goggins: When he next plans to discuss the implementation of plan Colombia with representatives of the US Government. [145036]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We have regularly discussed developments in Colombia with the US Government and will naturally keep in close touch with the new US Administration.
    The new Administration's approach on Colombia is not yet clear. At his Senate confirmation hearing on 17 January, Colin Powell said the Administration supported US aid
    to help the Colombian Government protect its people, fight the illicit drug trade, halt the momentum of the guerrillas and ultimately bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution to the conflict.
    We and our EU partners will continue to place particular importance upon the peace process, socioeconomic initiatives, alternative development and measures to improve human rights and protect the environment.
    Mr. Goggins: Is my hon. Friend aware that 170 unarmed civilians have been murdered in Colombia since the start of the year, including 25 people from one village who were butchered last Wednesday morning by a paramilitary death squad? Is he also aware that a military strategy supported by the United States is now operating in the Putumayo region in southern Colombia? Part of the strategy includes crop spraying, which is causing major hazards to the health of local communities, and to the environment.
    When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the new US Administration, will he tell them that plan Colombia in its present form is not working, and that it is making things worse, not better? Will he say that this Government will never support the plan in its present form? Will he ensure that the voice of grassroots communities in that deteriorating situation will continue to be heard, by this Government and the international community at large?
    Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his serious and continued interest in what is happening in Colombia. We share his concerns and deeply deplore the recent murders of campasinos. Killing is undoubtedly taking place, at the hands of the FARC and the paramilitary. I stress that the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office was in Colombia last week, urging the Government there to crack down on paramilitaries and to maintain a dialogue for peace with the FARC.
    We are not underpinning America's plan Colombia, but I emphasise that we are trying to support a peace process. We share my hon. Friend's concerns about what is happening in Putumayo. When I was in Colombia, I was told that areas of over 3 hectares only would be sprayed, but we know that that is not happening. We want progress on the voluntary eradication of coca crops, and on alternative economic development in local communities. There are local proposals to that effect in Magdalena Media, for example. One of the leading figures behind those proposals is the well respected Father Francisco Roux. We hope to invite him to the UK soon so that he

    787
    can let us know what is happening on the ground and to enable us to keep a close, clear and positive local perspective on developments.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: In his talks with the US Government, will the Minister make it clear that he wants a guarantee that they will not in any circumstances use the live fungus fusiparium for spraying coca crops?
    Mr. Battle: Again, we have made that point before to the Governments of both Colombia and the US. We will continue to press the point. We believe that voluntary eradication of coca and the development of alternative crops are the key, so that campasinos have an economic future. That is the way to undermine the FARC's grip on the local economy, which is based on coca crops. That is what we want to happen.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: One of the last presidential acts of former President Clinton was to waive the human rights condition attached by Congress to all aid under plan Colombia. Will my hon. Friend the Minister seek an early opportunity to express to the new Administration our disappointment at that decision? Will he continue to insist, to the United States and to the European Union, that respect for the fundamental standards of human rights must be a condition of all future international aid to the Colombian Government?
    Mr. Battle: Again, yes; my hon. Friend's close attention to developments in Colombia is much appreciated by people here and in Colombia. The Government and the European Union have made it clear that any support for Colombia is conditional on the importance of the rule of law, the defence of human rights and international humanitarian law, assistance for victims of violence, and protection of the environment.
    That is an important theme, and we have worked hard to ensure that non-governmental organisations, especially those involved in human rights, are involved in the debate. We convened the meeting in London to discuss the European response, and we encouraged the Colombian Government to take part in the Costa Rican conference with NGOs. When the permanent under-secretary visited Colombia this week, he was warmly welcomed by NGOs—both British and Colombian—for the way in which Britain maintains an emphasis on matters such as human rights. We will continue to do so, as such matters are important in this context.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: A key part of plan Colombia and the Colombian peace process is helping the Colombian Government in their fight against the drugs barons, and I am sure that the Minister would agree that the West Indies guard ship, now the Atlantic patrol task (north), has played a leading role in the successful seizures of narcotics. Is it not alarming, then, that the Government's defence cuts have resulted in the guard ship's failing to patrol for three months in each of the last two years? Can he confirm that there is currently no guard ship in the area, and that HMS Sheffield is not scheduled to deploy until next month and is in Portsmouth?
    788
    Has the Foreign Office made any protest to the Ministry of Defence, or requested that those ships reinstate their former patrols? Is it not true that, without British ships able to carry out that vital role, there will be more drugs on British streets?
    Mr. Battle: We have no ships based in Colombia, as far as I am aware. To treat the hon. Lady's question seriously—the drugs trade is a serious matter—I emphasise that we do have an agreement with the Ministry of Defence. I believe that the operations of the West Indian guard ship do include counter-drugs work in the Caribbean, and that that is those ships' orbit of operations. They are working on targeting cocaine, which primarily comes from Colombia.
    However, I emphasise that the West Indian guard ship is but one element in the efforts to take action against drugs trafficking in the whole region. That does mean collaboration and working closely with the Colombian Government.
    If I remember rightly from reading the newspapers this weekend, there was action in the arrest of drug carriers on a cruise liner, if the hon. Lady will recall, which suggests that Customs and Excise is achieving some real successes. There are no cuts. There is improvement, particularly in our co-operation, which is a marked improvement on what happened under the last Administration, who did practically nothing.

    Cuba
    Angela Smith: If he will make a statement about Government relations with Cuba. [145037]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Government enjoy a very good bilateral relationship with Cuba, based on open and frank discussions. Our policy is to pursue practical co-operation and critical dialogue. Like our European Union partners, we believe in constructive engagement, not isolation.
    Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I put it to him that, as we explore and improve our economic and political co-operation with Cuba, we should not impose on Cuba through our EU common position, or on further development, conditions that would not also apply to other countries—that we should not treat Cuba differently? When representatives of the Foreign Office next meet President Bush, will they place on the record our very strong opposition to the embargo that the United States Government have placed on the Cuban people?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has campaigned diligently to improve relations with Cuba over a long period, which is welcome. I remind the House that the Cuba initiative was established in 1985, following a visit to Cuba by a former Department of Trade and Industry science Minister. As a result, the Caribbean trade advisory group set up a private sector group whose aim was to strengthen United Kingdom trade and investment ties. That group celebrated its fifth anniversary recently.

    789
    We intend to push that work further forward. We are steadily developing diplomatic relations with Cuba. There is an extensive exchange of ministerial visits and trade missions. As we have made plain all along, it is right that we should make clear our rejection of the US approach by supporting the Cuban United Nations resolution against that embargo, so that Cuba should not be treated differently; we agree with my hon Friend.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that Cuba remains a communist dictatorship run by the man who did more than anyone else to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war, why are the Government, and Labour Back Benchers, so enamoured of that dictatorial regime?
    Mr. Battle: Under the previous Government, it was a Tory Minister who went to Cuba to open diplomatic relations, so I wonder whether the shadow Ministers have had a change of line. We have good bilateral relations. Business and cultural links will increase and we intend to foster them. Yes, there is real economic hardship and poverty in Cuba, as a result of other attitudes. It seems to me that some Tory Members are locked into an out-of-date time warp. It seems that, for some of them, the pre-1989 cold war is not yet over.
    There are only some Tories who refuse to move on.
    Mr. John McFall: Despite the trade embargo, the Minister will know of the growing influence of Cuba in the Caribbean and the fact that many countries are losing out on an opportunity. Is not the best way to encourage peaceful pluralism, democracy and economic progress to ensure that all sanctions are lifted and encourage trade and tourism? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will take that up with the new Administration in America?
    Mr. Battle: We cannot accept that American attempts to control the activities of UK companies which do legitimate business with Cuba are fair. The Government and the European Union have made clear our opposition to the Helms-Burton arrangement and other extra-territorial legislation. I agree that those laws constrain legitimate commercial activity and are objectionable in principle. We shall continue to make that plain.

    Turkey
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last had discussions with the Prime Minister of Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [145038]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary met Mr. Ecevit briefly at the European Council in Nice in December. The Prime Minister also had a bilateral meeting with him in January last year, when they discussed Turkey's EU candidacy, Greek-Turkish relations, EU-Turkey bilateral relations, the Caucasus, NATO and European defence. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets the Foreign Minister of Turkey regularly, most recently in Brussels in December.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Has anyone in his Department spoken to the
    790
    Turkish Government about the plight of the 25,000 Kurdish people who are to be forcibly displaced to make way for the Ilisu dam? If no representations have been made, where is that ethical foreign policy?
    Mr. Vaz: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we raise that matter whenever we have a discussion with our Turkish counterparts. The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that four conditions, which he has set down, must be met before he is prepared to accede to the request for cover for the Ilisu dam. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to raise those issues until we are satisfied that all of those conditions are met.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What sort of ethical Government foreign policy denies the genocide of Armenians in Turkey—even though the British Government at the time the genocide took place acknowledged it—because a powerful ally in NATO refuses to acknowledge the sins of the past?
    Mr. Vaz: The Government's foreign policy is not based on what other countries would like us to do. We have made clear our policy on that issue. That was a sad and sensitive event in the history of Armenia; that remains the position.
    Sir David Madel: Do the Turkish Government accept that if Cyprus joins the European Union, there must be complete freedom of movement throughout the island? Therefore, when is the Turkish army going to leave and what is the Turkish Government's response when the Minister points out to them—as I hope he does—that Turkey must leave Cyprus, which must be restored as an independent state, and that there must be complete freedom of movement if Cyprus joins the EU?
    Mr. Vaz: We are in complete agreement with the talks that are going on. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the proximity talks are important. We have a special representative, Sir David Hannay, who is dealing with those matters. Of course the issue concerns the EU. We have made clear our position on Cyprus's application to join the EU. We would prefer a united island to join, but unity is not a precondition of membership. All countries involved in that issue are aware of the position, and we shall continue to do everything that we possibly can to accept and follow the statement of the Prime Minister in December 1998, when he made it clear that he wanted to see matters resolved.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What do the Turks say about the use of their Incerlik air base in Anatolia for the purpose, last Saturday, of bombing an Iraqi cattle feed factory, killing six Iraqi cowherds?
    Mr. Vaz: As my hon. Friend knows, Turkey is a NATO ally and has worked with the United Kingdom on a number of different conflicts. It is an ally on which we rely. As for the particular issue that he has raised, I give an assurance that I shall raise it with the Turkish ambassador when I see him this week.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Turkish Government have real

    791
    concerns about the creation of a European rapid reaction force outside NATO? Will he stop trying to pretend to the contrary?
    Mr. Vaz: No.
    Mr. Maude: Last June, the Foreign Secretary said that "they"—the non-EU NATO members—
    recognise that it is an excellent outcome for them.—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1124.]
    The Prime Minister of Turkey has said:
    Turkey's rights … are being trampled on … EU military decisions with regard to NATO will be … made in our absence. It is impossible for us to accept this—[Interruption.]

    Mr. Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking for Turkey.
    Mr. Maude: It is the Prime Minister of Turkey who will speak for Turkey. Who can we trust to represent the Turkish Government's view—the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary or the Turkish Prime Minister?
    Mr. Vaz: We have made it absolutely clear that NATO remains the bedrock of our defence policy. We have explained that so many times to the right hon. Gentleman that I feel at pains to have to explain it again to him. On every single occasion, we are consulting and discussing with Turkey as a NATO ally. Turkey is relaxed about what we are proposing to do. When it has concerns, it discusses them within the proper parameters of the continuing discussions on defence policy. We do not have to discuss those concerns with the Conservative party.

    EU Institutions (Gender Diversity)
    Shona McIsaac: What steps he is taking to promote gender diversity inside EU institutions. [145039]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We are committed to all efforts to improve gender diversity in the workplace. We strongly support initiatives to create environments favourable to the recruitment of women, to their promotion and to their career development within the EU institutions. Our own European fast stream programme helps to recruit women to the EU institutions: in the past two years, there have been more successful women candidates than men candidates. We also supported the June 2000 council resolution calling on the EU institutions to promote the balanced recruitment of men and women. We have done well, we can do better, and we are striving to do better.
    Shona McIsaac: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does the Government agree that encouraging women's participation in the political process is vital to democracy? If so, what advice would he give to the Conservative party, which admits that only 2 per cent. of its membership is women under 45?
    Mr. Vaz: Fortunately, it is not part of my brief to offer advice to the Conservative party. However, I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the issue. She was, after all, the first woman Member of Parliament from
    792
    Cleethorpes in history, and her contribution in the sphere of gender diversity is well known. I assure her that the Foreign Secretary believes that it is extremely important not only that we get more women in the Foreign Office, appointed on the basis of merit, but that we encourage the European Union to appoint more women to the Commission and the Secretariat and to all the various bodies of the EU.
    We are currently having discussions with the Swedish presidency. As my hon. Friend knows, half the members of the Swedish Cabinet are women. Therefore, there is a good opportunity to work with a country that has the presidency and will take the issue of gender diversity very seriously indeed. I thank her for raising this important issue.
    Mr. John Bercow: Further to the inquiry from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), will the Minister say what proportion of employees of European Union institutions are transsexuals, and how that figure compares with the achievement recorded thus far by British Departments?
    Mr. Vaz: I personally have no knowledge of how many members of the European Union are trans-sexuals. However, the shadow Foreign Secretary seems to spend so much time talking to so many different people, I am sure that he will be able to find a quote from a trans-sexual that he will be able to pass on to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Lammy: I am sure that the whole House will welcome steps to make European Union institutions more representative of the communities that they serve, especially regarding women. Will my hon. Friend the Minister a comment on steps to promote ethnic diversity in our European institutions? He will be aware that there are more than 3 million Africans in France and that Germany has a large population of Muslims and Africans.
    Mr. Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am aware of all that he has done during his career to promote the cause of minority groups. I assure him that we regard diversity as relating to the employment not only of more women, but of more people from ethnic minorities. The United Kingdom has a very good story to tell about this subject. Indeed, I believe that we have a leadership role to play in the European Union. The number of Foreign Office employees who come from the ethnic minority community has doubled in its four years under my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Sierra Leone
    Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the United Nations Security Council expert panel report on the link between diamonds and the arms trade in Sierra Leone. [145040]
    Mr. Roger Berry: What assessment the Government have made of the United Nations Security Council expert panel report on the link between diamonds and the arms trade in Sierra Leone. [145045]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We welcome the hard-hitting report by the UN Sierra Leone expert panel, which exposes sanctions busters such as Victor Bout. The UN Angola monitoring mechanism ah o detailed his sinister and destructive activities. As a large part of his operations are run from the United Arab Emirates, we have urged the UAE authorities to take all possible action to close down his companies in Sharjah and Dubai. We are delivering the same message to other Governments in countries where Bout is active.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that he believes that action should also be taken against another of the key sanctions busters named in the report, Sanjivan Ruprah? As Ruprah and his friends are supplying arms to be used against British troops in Sierra Leone, what are we going to do to stop him?
    Mr. Hain: The actions of Sanjivan Ruprah are equally as odious as those of Victor Bout. He supplies diamonds and brings in arms with Victor Bout's assistance. We have barred him from entering Britain, as he sought to do last summer with his family, and we are working with the United Nations to obtain a Security Council resolution that will clamp down on his activities. He is based in Monrovia and we want smart sanctions to be taken against Liberia, which is perpetuating that mutilating war by orchestrating the rebel forces, the Revolutionary United Front.
    Mr. Berry: Does my hon. Friend have any evidence of links between sanctions busters in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where diamonds and minerals help to sustain Africa's worst war? Will the Government continue to exert pressure on those involved to abide by the Lusaka agreement and to end this awful conflict?
    Mr. Hain: In the murky world of African arms dealers and illicit diamond traders, there is a considerable overlap between those involved in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo, which has vast mineral resources. We must clamp down on all of them.
    On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am glad to have the opportunity to say that the British Government are urging all of those who are involved in this dreadful African war in the Congo to respect the Lusaka agreement, to which they signed up. Following President Kabila's assassination, we want to move forward beyond the deadlock to which he was unfortunately a party and to get the United Nations peacekeepers deployed. That can occur only after all the belligerent forces in the region, including African armies and rebel forces, draw back as they agreed to do in Lusaka almost two years ago. We can then end the war and allow prosperity and peace for the Congolese people.
    Mr. David Heath: Is not there very little point in referring to the activities of the people who supply the arms that fuel the conflicts in Africa as odious if we are not prepared to take action to do something about them? Why will not this Parliament introduce on to the statute book a provision to control the activities of arms brokers and mercenaries?
    Mr. Hain: On the latter point, a draft Bill, on which we are consulting, will shortly be considered in the House. It deals with precisely the sort of arms traffickers and brokers about whom the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is concerned. Our domestic legislation would not catch people such a Victor Bout, who is not a British citizen, and Sanjivan Ruprah, who occasionally uses a British passport, among others, and is not a British citizen.
    No one can criticise the Government for not taking the most vigorous action that has been suggested internationally to clamp down on the arms and diamond traders who perpetuate the awful wars in Africa. We have led the way in the United Nations and elsewhere in bringing pressure to bear in discussions with Russia, other European countries and African countries where people such as Victor Bout and Sanjivan Ruprah are active.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister's answer would be more convincing if he was not part of a Government who connived at putting Corporal Sankoh in charge of the diamond-producing areas of Sierra Leone. When does he expect the forces of the Sierra Leone Government to take control of the diamond-producing areas so that they can produce a royalty for the democratically elected Government, not the bandits that run Liberia?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman's reference to Corporal Sankoh constitutes a prostitution of history and the Lomé agreement—[Interruption.] Yes it does, and he should withdraw that remark.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the importance of the Sierra Leone army's deployment into the diamond-producing areas of that country. That holds the key to a long-term solution to the conflict. British forces are helping to train the Sierra Leone army so that it is capable of deploying with the support of the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Front-Bench Members to start backing British forces and the British Government's activities in Sierra Leone. They are seeking to bring peace and stability to a people who have been ravaged by a mutilating war. Conservative Members should stop carping and criticising and start backing the resolute action that we have taken.

    Iran (Jewish Population)
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If he will make a statement on the treatment of Jews in Iran. [145042]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): The Jewish community in Iran is represented, as are other minorities, by a member in the Majlis. Judaism is among the religions recognised by the Iranian constitution. Jewish Iranians are free to run businesses and enjoy their culture, although the right to hold public office is circumscribed. However, we remain very concerned at the sentencing of 10 Jews and two Muslims on espionage charges.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I strongly commend my hon. Friend on the clear line that he has taken. Did he make it clear to the Iranian ambassador when he met him yesterday that those who choose to hold the most obnoxious show trials

    795
    of people whose only crime is being Jewish not only undermine any pretence to decent government in their country, but make it impossible for any nation outside Iran to support its future inclusion in international agreements?
    Mr. Hain: I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that I raised the matter with the ambassador when I saw him yesterday. I expressed the Government's—and, I am sure, the whole House's—deep anxiety about the trial. My hon. Friend's description of it is accurate. Although there is a reforming regime in Iran, led by President Khatami, reactionary forces seek to hold back those reforms. They continue to control the judiciary. They have used the trial reprehensibly, and the victims are there for all to see. We must continue to engage with Iran, support President Khatami's reform process and encourage his resistance to the reactionary forces by providing the international engagement and support for reform that Iran so desperately needs.
    Mr. James Clappison: While we all want reform in. Iran, is not the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) right to say that the trial fell far short of international standards of justice? While the 10 members of the Jewish community and two Muslims languish in jail in Iran, there is a serious blemish on Iran's human rights record. As the hon. Lady rightly said, it is a serious impediment to relations between this country and Iran. Will the Minister take every opportunity to impress that on the Iranian Government for as long as those unfortunate individuals continue to suffer injustice?
    Mr. Hain: I am happy to give that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has raised that matter often in the House, for which I applaud him. The sentences have been reduced—that is a welcome development—and we continue to press for the Iranian authorities to show clemency. However, we must recognise that the way in which we do that is important because we could play into the hands of reactionary forces. They do not want western engagement or to make friends with the international community; they want to return to the belligerent isolationism of the 1980s and early 1990s.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that Iran's role in arming Hezbollah to provoke terrorism along Israel's northern border intensifies concern about Iran's treatment of its Jews?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have raised the issue specifically with the Iranian Government at the highest possible level, whenever we have had the opportunity. Hezbollah does not operate on its own—it has supporters in Syria and Iran, and the sooner that support is cut off, the better.
    Mr. Richard Spring: This week, in particular, when we remember the holocaust and what has, at times, been the terrible historic persecution of Jewish minorities, is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing further has been heard about a possible annulment
    796
    of the verdicts against the 10 Iranian Jews since 25 October? Will he press for progress to he made on that specific point?
    Mr. Hain: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and to say yes, we are pressing for specific progress on that issue: I did so yesterday. May I remind him that this Government introduced the national holocaust day, on which we remember the dreadful genocide committed by the Nazis against the Jews during and before the second world war? We shall continue to ensure that no one in Britain ever forgets that awful legacy.

    Nice Treaty (Polish Community)
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What representations he has received from the Polish community in Britain about the ratification of the treaty of Nice. [145044]
    The Secretary of Sate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Both the Federation of Poles in Great Britain and the Government of Poland have expressed their welcome for the outcome of the Nice European Council and their recognition of Britain's contribution in securing it. We have replied to the letter from the federation assuring it that we will seek early ratification of the treaty of Nice in order that Poland and others can become members of the European Union as soon as possible. I invite the Opposition spokesman to give the federation the same commitment.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I think that he knows that there is a significant Polish community in my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton. I am sure that many of its members will join me in welcoming the treaty. Is it not absolutely clear that what the countries of east and central Europe want most from the European Union is speedy ratification of the treaty? Would it not be a terrible betrayal of those countries if we were to reject the treaty, given that they have suffered so much under Soviet rule?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Across all the applicant countries, there is acute interest in how we shall respond to the treaty of Nice. A number of them have warned us that if the European Union does not proceed with the treaty, it will strengthen the hand of nationalists and extreme forces within their countries. It is, therefore, important that we proceed with the measures.
    I noticed with interest that the Leader of the Opposition has called for target dates for Poland and other countries to enter the European Union. That requires real brass neck from a party that is insisting that there should be a new intergovernmental conference, followed by renegotiation of the treaty, and a referendum on the results of that renegotiation. I should like to hear a target date for how long that would take, and how much it would delay enlargement.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: When will the full, definitive English translation of the treaty of Nice be made available, so that the British people can fully

    797
    understand those horrible aspects of the treaty that do not bear on the expansion of the union to the east, but bear on the liberties of the British people?
    Mr. Cook: There is a full English text of the treaty, and I shall be happy to deliver one to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
    I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I noticed last week that The Sun said that Britain had emerged as the winner from the treaty of Nice. I warn the hon. Gentleman and his party that there is no electoral majority to the right of that Eurosceptic newspaper, The Sun.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to the maximum possible enlargement of the European Union, and that, if that happens, institutional changes in the organisation will be required to make it more efficient? Can he also confirm that although those who believe that we can reject the Nice treaty or hold up the process of institutional change pretend to favour enlargement, they are in effect saying to Poland and other countries in central and eastern Europe that, in reality, enlargement will not happen if we ever have another Conservative Government in this country?
    Mr. Cook: There will be no enlargement without reform of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. That is what we secured at Nice. I remind the House that the outcome is good not simply for enlargement and the candidate countries, but for Britain. For the first time since we joined the European Community, we secured an increase in Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers. It is that gain that the Opposition describe as a horrible outcome.

    EU Enlargement
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with his Swedish counterpart on preparations for the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [145046]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): At yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs Council, I welcomed the commitment of the Swedish presidency to give enlargement of the European Union -the highest priority".
    In the candidate countries, enlargement will promote investment and prosperity and underpin freedom and stability. In the existing member states, enlargement will widen trade and enable us to find solutions to common problems such as cross-border crime. For that reason, we want negotiations with the best-prepared candidates to be concluded next year, but enlargement will not be possible unless we ratify the treaty of Nice in the meantime.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that full reply. Does he share my pleasure that enlargement has been made one of the top priorities? Does he share my concern that agriculture should be made the top priority to enable sufficient time to be taken to negotiate what is
    798
    probably the most difficult policy area, in particular to help the Baltic states and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join when we hope they will join, by 2004–05?
    Mr. Cook: I agree that agriculture will be one of the more difficult dossiers for negotiation. It is important that we proceed with reform of agriculture policy, but it is equally important that we do not make that a condition of enlargement; otherwise, those who oppose agricultural reform will find that that is a basis on which to oppose enlargement.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When my right hon. Friend meets the Swedish Government to discuss EU enlargement, will he be prepared to raise the Turkish application to join and whether the human rights situation, the number of people in prison, prison conditions, the number of people on hunger strike and the denial of human rights to so many people in Turkey renders that country ineligible to join?
    Mr. Cook: The simple fact is that if Turkey is to proceed with its candidacy, it must meet the Copenhagen criteria on political and legal reforms and respect for ethnic minorities. All those in Turkey who have campaigned for such reforms enthusiastically support Turkey's application to join the EU because they consider that to be one of the strongest levers that they have to deliver the reforms that are important to them and important to my hon. Friend. There is no prospect of negotiations starting until Turkey meets those political conditions.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: As we approach national holocaust day, does the Secretary of State agree that perhaps the best memorial that we could raise to the victims of Nazism and Stalinism in Europe would be the creation of an enlarged Europe embracing the countries of the Baltic and eastern Europe?
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely and share the hon. Gentleman's view. One of the greatest gains from enlargement will be that the countries of central and eastern Europe will have underpinned the freedoms, the justice and the stability that we in western Europe currently enjoy. That will be a gain for them; it will also be a gain for us.

    North Korea
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps have been taken to promote trade with North Korea since the establishment of diplomatic relations with that country. [145047]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Recent developments in relations between South and North Korea are good news and, as part of our establishment of diplomatic relations, we are taking steps to promote trade relations with North Korea.
    Mr. Prentice: It is indeed good news that the so-called hermit kingdom is, after half a century, emerging into

    799
    the daylight. A North Korean delegation is coming to Westminster next week or the week after. My concern is that 20 million North Koreans exist on the edge of starvation—there are terrible famines there—and 2 million have already perished. We established diplomatic relations last month, but what can we do to follow that through by achieving improved trade relations and, in particular, by boosting North Korea's agricultural sectors so that it can feed its own people?
    Mr. Battle: Trade Partners UK, in consultation with the Korean business advisory group, is preparing detailed
    800
    advice for British business. That advice, which will be available from March this year, is expected to be regularly updated as our relationship develops and our understanding of North Korea improves.
    It is important for us to join in the campaign to eradicate poverty, famine and hunger in North Korea. I shall be meeting the delegation that will arrive next week. We think that, for once, the policy—that, in particular, of Kim Dae Jung: the "sunshine policy"—to promote a thaw in relations with the north has been successful so far. We want to encourage it and see it develop further.

Orders of the Day

  Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.31 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is part of the Government's response to companies' legitimate worries about the effects of aligning the income tax and national insurance treatment of employee share options.
  Before 6 April 1999 the national insurance liability on employee share options arose at the date of the grant of an option, whereas for many years income tax liability has crystallised at the date of exercise of the option. That differential treatment ended in 1999. Options granted on or after 6 April 1999 relating to shares that are readily convertible into cash are now subject to treatment under national insurance rules that is similar to that under the income tax and PAYE rules. Provided that the option is not capable of being exercised more than 10 years following granting of the option, there is no national insurance liability at the time of grant instead, the liability arises at the date of exercise, and the figure is the same as that which is chargeable to income tax.
  Following the change many companies, especially those involved in international activities, expressed concern about accounting difficulties caused by the unpredictability of their secondary national insurance charges. The liability for a company as secondary contributor is uncapped, and is dependent on the volatility of the company's share price. Following a period of consultation, we introduced measures last year that went someway towards meeting those concerns.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Financial Secretary tell me what, during the process of legislative preparation, caused the Treasury or the Inland Revenue to miss the point to which he just referred—the inability of the legislator to perceive the practical implications of the proposal with which the Bill seeks to deal?
  Mr. Timms: Many changes have been made since the introduction of the measure. I think that the rapid rise in the share prices of some of the companies affected was unforeseen by them and others when those changes were made; certainly what has happened in the stock market was not predicted at the time.
  We announced that employers would be able to ask employees to bear the secondary national insurance charge on the share option gain. That announcement was made on 19 May last year, and has generally received a good response. Companies have said that it has removed their accounting difficulties in relation to future awards of options.
  802
  Last year's legislation was drafted to cover all the options that had already been granted. In practice, it has been difficult for employers to negotiate with employees terms that change options already granted to them. For many companies, uncertainty has remained in regard to options granted between 6 April 1999, when the change was made, and 19 May last year, when the new rules were announced. One company, for example, has a provision somewhere in excess of $100 million in its accounts for options granted during that period which it cannot currently remove. We have accepted the strength and seriousness of those concerns and I suggest to the House that the Bill meets them in a simple and practical way.
  We are giving companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000 and to do so early, in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that choose to take advantage of this 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 a period of 60 days of Royal Assent of the Bill. That effectively caps the national insurance liability by reference to the company's share price on 7 November last year and provides the company with complete certainty.
  The benefits to the company are that it will be able to remove the need to make further provision against profits; it will be able to remove the provision for the liability from its balance sheet; and it will save national insurance contribution costs in relation to any further upward movement of the share price. The Bill offers early settlement as a quid pro quo for certainty.
  Mr. John Bercow: The Minister said that companies had welcomed the delegation of responsibility to employees for secondary national insurance contributions. Could he explain in terms of the accounting benefit to those companies whether he thinks that the saving can be quantified in terms of money or simply in manpower and inconvenience avoided?
  Mr. Timms: I am not sure whether it is either of those. The benefit of the change is that the employee taking on the liability is the person who controls when the liability falls, because that is the point when the options are exercised. The uncertainty in the company's accounts about when the exercise will occur and what the share price at the time will be is removed. The removal of uncertainty is the key benefit of the new arrangement. However, that leaves a problem in terms of those options that had already been exercised between the change in April 1999 and the announcement on 19 May last year. It is that period, and the uncertainly left by options issued in that period, that is addressed by the Bill.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Could the Minister explain the principle that underlies the requirement to pay national insurance contributions on those increases in the price of the company's shares in

  803
  relation to readily convertible assets? Is it not to prevent an abuse of that system? Could that not have been simply dealt with by always capping it at a modest figure which reflected the use of that money as an artificial settlement to pay, but left completely untouched genuine increases over time in the company's share price?
  Mr. Timms: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that there is a problem of abuse being addressed, but the mechanism that he proposes would leave unresolved a significant part of the problem, which was that there was a significant incentive for organisations to find ways to reimburse their staff through options—because the national insurance liability would not arise—rather than through salary.
  We want an arrangement where the national insurance system is not biased in favour of either of those options. A number of organisations had come up with some quite ingenious methods of doing that. If we capped the national insurance liability, it would leave the bias in favour of the options route, as opposed to the salary route. We felt that that should not be allowed to continue.
  When a company opts to settle its national insurance liabilities in this way, a special contribution will be payable by the employer on the deemed gain. This will be an employer-only charge, payable at the current class 1 secondary contribution rate of 12.2 per cent. A special employer-only contribution has been created so that the employee is not required to pay employees' national insurance as a result of the employer's decision to settle early.
  When an option is settled, the employee will not be required to pay employees' national insurance on either the deemed or the actual gain. When an employee has taken on the liability for the employer's national insurance contributions under the measures introduced last summer, the employee will also be able to take advantage of this measure and settle his or her liabilities. We have ensured that the tax relief available to the employee, when the employee takes on the employer's liability, will still be available when the employee settles the liability in accordance with the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister referred to the contingencies that companies must have in their accounts for what might be the increase in national insurance liabilities. Has he made any estimate of the costs to the Treasury of the difference between the deemed gain on 7 November and what might have occurred with the payment of these options at the end of this financial year?
  Mr. Timms: Yes, I have made an assessment of that, and we have published the figures. In the first year we anticipate that there will be a higher level of receipts to the Treasury because payments will be made early, but in later years there will be a significant loss. I have the figures but, from memory, the net loss to the Exchequer over the period would be about £150 million.
  The Bill responds to the concerns of employers. We anticipate that many companies will take up this opportunity to crystallise their national insurance liability. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill because, while it contains provisions which improve upon the existing unreasonable situation, it would be unreasonable to require companies to gamble on their tax liabilities where share options may never be exercised and possibly contrary to the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000."
  I begin by declaring an interest, as indicated, as a director of a company that has option schemes. The Bill is the Government's second attempt to correct measures that they got wrong in the April 1999 legislation which introduced the gains on options as subject to national insurance and income tax.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not being silly, but there is a point of principle involved here, and I should be grateful for your clarification. Surely when a declaration is made, it is meant to be more specific than simply a general declaration.
  Mr. Speaker: The details of a declaration are for the Member and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The details of a registration, as opposed to a declaration, are a matter for the Member and the Commissioner. I am speaking specifically about a declaration on the Floor of the House of Commons which has been the subject of some consideration by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I ask you to clarify the position, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: That is also a matter for the hon. Member concerned. I notice that on the Order Paper, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has declared an interest. As far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman has conducted himself properly.
  Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  The Bill might better he described as the share options (correction of further mistakes) Bill. The whole saga illustrates the hollowness of the Government's alleged support for entrepreneurship. In the beginning, back in April 1999, they saw scope for a major stealth tax. They expected to raise about £1 billion of revenues, as confirmed to me in correspondence from the Treasury. They then forgot that many companies' share prices may perform as a result of future expectations, but that they may not have the cash to meet the liability. Indeed, the national insurance contributions liability could have put such companies into financial difficulties. As outlined, the measures in May 2000—
  Mr. Timms: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not recognise the figure of £1 billion that he cites. Will he tell the House what that figure relates to?
  Mr. Flight: I wrote to the Treasury last August in order to clarify matters and asked what revenue the Treasury expected from the levy of NICs on the exercise of options.

  805
  The reply was that the revenue was expected to be about £1 billion per annum. I will be happy to send the Minister a copy of the letter. However, estimates made by employment accountants do not show anything like that figure, because existing measures are likely substantially to reduce the attractiveness of unapproved option schemes for new businesses.
  The Government first endeavoured to deal with the problems that they had created by enabling employers to transfer their liabilities to employees, but they forgot that, between April 1999 and May 2000, many companies had granted options which they were not able to transfer. The legislation is thus a response to the howls of many high-tech and young businesses and to the many companies who have advised that they will move their entrepreneurial endeavours overseas. The measure addresses those specific complaints.
  The Bill introduces a most unacceptable principle; it invites companies to gamble with their NIC tax liabilities. In essence, it says, "Pay up on the gain to 7 November or run the risk of higher NIC liabilities in the future". However, such liabilities may never arise; staff may leave or be sacked and the options will lapse, or the share price may not perform. Company managements will have to take unreasonable decisions with shareholders' funds.
  One of the main intentions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is to get rid of the scope for market abuse through the sending of misleading signals to the public on share prices and on the potential performance of companies. A company may decide not to elect for the special NIC payment because it may estimate that its business will not perform well, so the value of its shares will not rise. Equally, it may decide not to do so because it wants to initiate staff changes, or—more likely—it may not have enough cash.
  A company that decides not to exercise its option within the 60-day period will send a signal that will be interpreted by the markets as negative for that company and its share price and vice versa—the signals may be entirely misleading. That is a classic example of what market abuse is all about. Even if the abuse is unintended, committing it is a criminal offence The measures that have been introduced will lead to such problems.
  The Government could not resist including a further stealth tax angle in this relieving measure. The Bill brings forward NIC payments; it may elicit NIC payments that might not otherwise be made. Worse than that, when individuals are giving the election, they will pay their NICs but may never exercise the options and will be unable to offset the NIC payment made against income tax.
  The Bill is deficient in that it does not make clear when those people exercising that special provision will be able to offset against income tax the NICs they have paid. It gives insufficient notice; 60 days is unreasonable. The Minister assures me that the detailed regulations will be available if and when the Bill becomes law, but they have not been published in draft. Many small businesses do not have legal advisers on tap. If companies are foreign subsidiaries—as is so often the case in the UK at present—options are frequently handled outside the UK in the parent company. That company may not be aware of that and may not act in time. Therefore, the provisions could be unfair. The sharp companies will avail themselves of the gamble if it apparently makes sense;
  806
  the smaller businesses and foreign ones may not. The Bill is, dare I say, very poorly drafted. No doubt, we shall address that in more detail in Committee.
  Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that representations by companies, such as NTL, Micromuse and Cisco, caused the Government to react to a potentially damaging event in this case, yet on the climate change levy, which will vastly affect manufacturing industry to its great detriment, companies have received absolutely no response from the Government?
  Mr. Flight: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but I would add that such companies complain that they were not consulted about the Bill, which came out of the blue. The lack of consultation is one of the reasons why the Bill contains many technical errors.
  Clause 3 is a complete drafting mess, and roll-overs are misconstrued and mishandled. The arrangements are over-complex. It would be much more straightforward if the special NIC were payable on the exercise of the options, which would remove the gamble and the need for notice. It would make much more sense to exclude companies whose shares are not readily convertible assets and those whose option prices are any way under water on 7 November. That would save companies and the Inland Revenue a huge amount of unnecessary time and effort.
  The individual appointed by the Government as chairman of the small business investment taskforce has said that, in his view, the whole share option-NIC arrangements are punitive and will be highly negative to entrepreneurship in this country. Contrary to the Minister's previous comments on Report on the Finance Act 2000, United Kingdom tax and other arrangements on approved and unapproved option schemes are significantly less generous than those in the United States. Unapproved option schemes in the US involve a 39.6 per cent. charge on exercise, but the tax paid can be offset against the issuing company's corporate tax, producing an overall net tax charge of about 15 per cent. and enabling companies to be much more generous in option issuance. In the case of approved options, US individuals can have $100,000 per annum; they pay tax only on sale, not on exercise; and social charges are capped at incomes of $74,000. Therefore, there is virtually no US equivalent in practice to the UK NIC charge.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he confirm that, as I said when we have previously debated such matters, the figure of 39.6 per cent. refers only to federal tax, on top of which there are state taxes?
  Mr. Flight: The Minister is correct, but nothing like a 47.32 per cent. gross rate is achieved. If the Government were to tell companies that the tax paid by individuals could be offset against corporation tax, they would readily agree that the overall taxation of unapproved options in the United Kingdom was competitive with that in the United States. At present, the overall situation is wildly uncompetitive, which is why so many new, growing companies, such as those to which reference has been made, are increasingly undertaking their entrepreneurial activities outside the United Kingdom.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend rightly expresses the concerns of small businesses. In November 2000,

  807
  the Government issued a code of consultation on such matters, but there is a feeling abroad that they have not fulfilled it. Will he comment on that?
  Mr. Flight: There is a feeling that, bluntly, the proposals are all about raising further stealth taxes. There is no argument in principle for applying NICs to option gains; they are different from remuneration. Someone may go to work for a small business, take a lower salary and be awarded options in the hope that he will gain from them. However, there is no certainty that he will; it will depend entirely on whether the company does well and the share price goes up. If he leaves a well-paid job in a mature company such as Unilever, he will forgo his certain salary. There is a complete mismatch between certain and uncertain income, The logic for the argument that options are the same as salary does not exist.
  Conservative Members accept that the Government have shown some good faith in trying to tackle this problem. However, to put it candidly, the Bill is a dog's dinner and it has been drafted on the hoof. It is full of errors that we shall consider later and it will introduce a flawed principle that will make companies gamble with shareholders' funds. Consequently, they could even contravene the law by committing the offence of market abuse that was introduced by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We need to start again and recast this relieving measure, which is necessary and fair.
  Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman moved his amendment.
  Mr. Flight: I did, and it stresses that it is wrong to invite companies to gamble with their tax liabilities. That could result in the unintentional commitment of the offence of market abuse.
  3.56 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall be brief, because the Bill primarily attempts to make amends for the errors that the Government made in their original proposals. It is the second time that they have had to correct such errors and it remains to be seen whether it is the final time that they have to do so. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested that it will not, but I am not sure whether I agree with all his criticisms. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply.
  The Bill appears to fill the most obvious gap in the Government's previous proposals. It left some companies facing the potential for serious liabilities without their having an exit route, and that partly answers the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The Bill is intended to give companies an opportunity to resolve the problem of potential liabilities without forcing them down a route that might not be in their interests. The Conservatives describe that as gambling; I would describe it as offering choice to businesses that know their own position and can assess what is in their best interests. Although we have criticised the Government's approach, we shall support the Bill because it provides an answer to the most fundamental flaw that currently exists.
  I wish to raise two issues that flow out of the mess that has brought us to this point. First, the tendency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meddle in tax detail rather
  808
  than to seek to simplify and reform the broader tax system creates unnecessary problems and complications. Although he has had many successes, many people believe that the over-complication of the tax system has not done him a service. It certainly has not done the House and those who seek to understand the tax system a service, but it might have helped many accountants to increase their profits.
  Secondly, the reason for the complication, for all the difficulties that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs outlined and for the Government's difficulty in making sense of the changes is the fundamentals of a tax system in which the income tax and national insurance systems are not in line. If the Government wanted to bring the treatment of national insurance and income tax in line to create a single, more sensible structure, they would release a great many costs that fall on businesses and individuals who have to deal with a two-tier system that bears no relation to the realities of the way in which the national insurance fund is used.
  There is a fundamental deceit. National insurance is not a fund that people pay into to cover their future liabilities, but a vehicle that is treated simply as current taxation. Yet we have to go through all the complications that imply a system that is otherwise. That structure cannot be reformed rapidly without creating some unfairness. A long-term process of reform, which has a clear structure that is followed by the Government, would benefit everyone and remove the need for intensely technical debates. Such debates attract few hon. Members and hold even less interest for people outside the House, but go a long way to making a complicated tax system even worse.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I followed both speeches with interest? The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) concluded his remarks by saying that the measure was necessary and fair. Although I did not agree with many of his remarks, I could at least agree with that.
  The hon. Gentleman characterised the Bill as a measure for correcting further mistakes. He is wrong about that. It completes the process that began with the announcement of the transfer on 19 May last year, and provides a necessary and fair resolution of the position with regard to the options that were issued in the gap period.
  Mr. John Burnett: As a result of this measure and earlier changes, a company will want to shift the national insurance contributions liability to employees, but they will not want to assume it for nothing. How will Indemnity payments that companies make to employees For assuming that liability be treated in terms of tax and national insurance contributions?
  Mr. Timms: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by indemnity payments. We have arranged an offset against income tax when the additional liability is taken on. An employee will pay an effective rate that is rather more than 7 per cent., instead of the full 12.2 per cent., which is the effective rate that the employer pays. If income tax is paid at 40 per cent., the rate will fall to 7 per cent. That is a helpful step.
  Mr. Burnett: If a payment that is made to an employee by way of an indemnity for assuming the liability for NIC

  809
  is fully deductible in a company's accounts, will it be tax and NIC free in the employee's hands? I accept that an element of guesswork will be involved.
  Mr. Timms: I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's question and respond to it before I conclude my remarks.
  I was asked about the overall cost of the measure to the Treasury over the five-year period. I said that it would be about £150 million. In fact, we estimate the cost to be £160 million, which is roughly in line with what I said.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the measure would require companies to gamble. Like the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), I do not accept that characterisation. The Bill gives companies the opportunity to make a judgment and to decide which way forward is in their best interest. It gives them additional flexibility and freedom, which is helpful. I do not believe that companies will share the view of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that if a company's shares were not readily convertible assets, or if they were options that were under water—that is, the share price was less than when the option was granted—it might be helpful if it were possible to deem that those options had been settled in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, rather than requiring companies to make an application and to follow the full procedure. That is an interesting point, on which I will reflect. No doubt we will return to the matter in Committee.
  I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell for the measure. He made a case for further integration of the taxation and national insurance systems—an argument that we have heard in other forums. We have made good progress in aligning arrangements for the two. The measure that started the process that we are debating is an example of that alignment. We have brought together the organisations administering the two systems—the National Insurance Contributions Office is now part of the Inland Revenue. I expect the trend to continue.
  In Committee we will consider in detail the way in which the Bill will operate.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked an interesting question—whether there was a danger that in certain conditions, the wrong signals would be sent to the market, dependent upon whether a company was prepared to adopt within a 60-day period the right to the course of action outlined in the Bill. Is there not a danger that that might happen? Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the possibility?
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs raised an interesting point, but I do not believe that there are grounds for concern. The great benefit to a company of taking the proposed route is the certainty that it brings to its future liabilities. The company is not making a public statement about what it believes will happen to its share price in future.
  The uncertainty that the measure removes relates not just to the future share price pattern, but to the future occasions on which the option will be exercised. That is under the control of the employee, not the company.
  810
  It would be difficult to draw much inference about a company's expectations of its future share price from the decision that it makes with regard to the measure. Everyone accepts that the benefit of certainty is immense. It will remove an unknown and uncertain future liability, which will justify the change made possible by the Bill.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the information to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred be gleaned from the accounts? Has not the Accountancy Standards Board laid down rules as to how that information is defined in the accounts? is not that body in a position to redefine the rules so that share options could appear elsewhere in the accounts, where they would not be immediately identified with the failure to exercise the rights set out in the Bill?
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right: the continuing debate in the accountancy profession about how options should be accounted has not yet been resolved. However, I do not think that the outcome of that debate will affect how we proceed with the Bill, which gives a helpful new certainty to companies that have issued options in the period.
  Mr. Flight: Would the Minister agree that the market would assume that a company that did not avail itself of the special NIC option was pretty pessimistic about its future? However, might not there be some good practical reasons, which were not negative with regard to a company's prospects, to explain why a company had not availed itself of the option? The most obvious would be that a company wanted to make a substantial change among its executives, with the result that many options would lapse. Cash flow may also be relevant, so it is possible that a misleading signal could be given to the markets. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right to say that the information will appear in the accounts, but the news is likely to be in the markets beforehand.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman argues against his own point, as he said earlier that many interpretations could be placed on a company's decision not to avail itself of the opportunity provided by the Bill. For example, it might consider—reasonably enough—that many of the options would never be exercised, but that would not have anything to do with the company's future prospects. Because there could be so many reasons for a company not availing itself of the option, we need not fear that the market would interpret the decision in any particular way.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Little things often go wrong. Has my hon. Friend the Minister consulted widely on the impact of possible events that have not been considered in the House today? Is he satisfied that he has considered all the relevant issues in detail, and that there is therefore no need to worry?
  Mr. Timms: I have discussed the matters widely with many companies. I was accused a few minutes ago of taking too much notice of what people had said on the matter. I cannot give the House a categorical assurance that I have thought through every conceivable element of the Bill, and I am sure that there will be some fruitful discussions in Committee. However, I can assure my

  811
  hon. Friend that we have consulted widely, and talked to people specialising in the accounting treatment of the provisions of the Bill. I am reasonably satisfied that we will not run into unforeseen difficulties such as my hon. Friend quite rightly described.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about would happen when a company chose to "indemnify"—as he put it—the payments made to an employee. Any payment from an employer to an employee is subject to tax and national insurance. The tax relief that will be offered is only the relief that I described—that is, for the amount of secondary national insurance contributions that the employee bears. However, if the employer takes back some of the liability—if he, for example, cancels some of it out—the employee will not pay further tax and national insurance on that. In other words, I consider that in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described, there would not be what one would regard as an indemnity; rather, the employer would take back some of the liability, and if that happened the question of tax and national insurance would not arise.
  We anticipate that as many as two thirds of eligible companies will choose to take advantage of the measure; we have already had expressions of interest from more than 50. The ability to settle the liability based on current values and remove future growth from the charge to national insurance will help many companies. I believe that it will be widely welcomed and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 117, Noes 280.

  Division No. 74]

  [4.15 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Baldry, Tony

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gibb, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Green, Damian

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clappison, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Horam, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemptice)

  Key, Robert

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lansley, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Flight, Howard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  812

  Loughton, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tredinnick, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Randall, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. James Gray.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Casale, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Allan, Richard

  Chaytor, David

  Allen, Graham

  Chidgey, David

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Berry, Roger

  Crausby, David

  Best, Harold

  Cummings, John

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davidson, Ian

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)

  Breed, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burnett, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Edwards, Huw

  Cann, Jamie

  Efford, Clive

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  813

  Ennis, Jeff

  McFall, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McNulty, Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWalter, Tony

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gapes, Mike

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Maxton, John

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Miller, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Grogan, John

  Moore, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Healey, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Oaten, Mark

  Hendrick, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Heppell, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hill, Keith

  Pearson, Ian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jenkins, Brian

  Purchase, Ken

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rooney,Terry

  Joyce, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keetch, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ruane, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kidney, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lammy, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Laxton, Bob

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lepper, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Singh, Marsha

  Levitt, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Livsey, Richard

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Love, Andrew

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

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Soley, Clive

  McDonnell, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  814

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tyler, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Vaz, Keith

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Webb, Steve

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winnick, David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Woolas, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 3.

  Division No. 75]

  [4.29 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Casale, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caton, Martin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chaytor, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chidgey, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coleman, Iain

  Benton, Joe

  Colman, Tony

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Cooper, Yvette

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blackman, Liz

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cummings, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Breed, Colin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Darvill, Keith

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burden, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Burnett, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burstow, Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  815

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Drew, David

  Joyce, Eric

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keetch, Paul

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Efford, Clive

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livsey, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Liwyd, Elfyn

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McFall, John

  Hain, Peter

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hanson, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McWalter, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Maxton, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hoey, Kate

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  816

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

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

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torlaen)

  Snape, Peter

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Oaten, Mark

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter L

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Plaskitt, James

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewlsham E)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Raynsford Nick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rendel, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Todd, Mark

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Webb, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  White, Brian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wills, Michael

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Winnick, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wood, Mike

  Singh, Marsha

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second Time.

  Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme)
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Timms: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill—

  Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1st February 2001.

    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

    The programme motion proposes that the Standing Committee be brought to a conclusion on 1 February. We consider that appropriate because it will give sufficient time for up to four sittings in Committee during the week commencing 29 January, although we think that we are likely to need a maximum of two sittings. However, the Programming Sub-Committee will consider the detailed timetable and may decide that it will be necessary to sit more frequently than usual. The arrangements for the programming of later stages of the Bill will be decided by the House at a later time, in the light of the experience in Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Forth: We are just beginning to get properly to grips with the full horrors of this iniquitous new process that the Government have inflicted on the House. These debates play an important part in providing the House with the ability to explore what is now the relationship between the Government and the House of Commons, and to explore how the legislative process is supposed to work under the dispensation that is so wrongly called modernisation. The programme motions and the debates surrounding them have started to provide an important opportunity for the House to consider whether the Government's approach to the legislative process is acceptable or satisfactory.
    The Minister said that, in his opinion, it would be sufficient for the Standing Committee to have completed consideration of the Bill by 1 February, and that he envisaged four Committee sittings. We do not know whether four sittings will be adequate; we cannot know that at this stage. The big difference that has taken place between the way in which the House used to work and the way in which it now has to work is that the Government take it upon themselves arbitrarily to decide how long a Standing Committee will take.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is another feature to this question? It is that very short Standing Committees make it much more difficult for those outside the House to make representations on the content of the Bill at a time that is relevant to the Committee's consideration of the Bill.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. It is typical that the Government do not care whether right hon. and hon. Members have a proper opportunity to consider a Bill. However, they care even
    818
    less whether anyone outside the House has an adequate opportunity to make representations or to attend Committee sittings, thus allowing that iterative process, to which we had become used in the past, between members of the Committee and legitimate outside interests who wish to play their part in the Committee's considerations.
    The Government say that, in their view, the legislative process—the scrutiny of legislation by the House—will be completed within a certain, very short, period of time. That is the new arrangement that we are supposed to accept. It is quite different from the arrangement that we knew before, in which it was assumed that the legislative process would take as long as was properly required for the Bill to be considered and amended before being brought back to the Floor of the House on Report. The Government now say that they know how long Members of the House will need to consider our legislation.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Was not that the most revealing remark by the Minister, to which my right hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention? It was—no doubt involuntarily—an extremely revealing insight into the Government's state of mind. Is it not clear that, in the Government's perception, the legislature will examine legislation only to the extent—and in a form—decided in advance by the Executive? What kind of balance in the constitution does that leave us with?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. As we proceed down this path—we are still in the early stages of the new dispensation—we see more and more clearly the arrogance of Ministers in taking it on themselves to decide how long scrutinising legislation will take.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend was present last night when we debated another timetable motion and will remember the justification given by the Minister for Public Health for a time limit that will expire on 8 February. She said that, in her opinion, the House has sufficient time to consider that Bill. Does not that reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. The legislative process is clearly being run on the basis of Ministers' opinions. Worse than that, although the Minister can say, as the motion tells us, that, in the Government's view, the House of Commons can have only until 1 February properly to consider the Bill, we have not even been given full information. We do not know what the secret Programming Sub-Committee—which, needless to say, will be dominated by the Government—will say about the time that the Government will allow the Committee to sit and deliberate. First, the Government tell us the end date for deliberations. Then, the Government-dominated Programming Sub-Committee will decide how long each day and each sitting will last.
    Mr. John Redwood: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the different treatment that we receive from different junior Ministers who represent the Executive? Today, the junior Minister graciously let us into the secret of how many Committee sittings the Government want and even said that there could be another two, according to unspecified criteria. That is a

    819
    slight improvement on what we usually get, which is no information at all about what the Executive have decided. We now have a little more knowledge of the time available and I am grateful for that, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that this debate should not be taking place because the Executive should not tell the House how long it can debate such matters.
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is obviously in a generous mood today because he has been much kinder to the Government and the Minister than I am disposed to be. The Minister made the rather casual remark that only two Committee sittings are needed, presumably because these matters are so trivial and his Bill so good that scrutiny is not required. I do not consider that to be a concession; it is a gratuitous insult to the House, the legislative process and the members of the Committee. Of course, we do not yet know who they will be.
    Another factor is that, given that we do not know who will be a member of the Committee or how much legitimate outside interest there will be, we cannot possibly know how many amendments are likely to be tabled. We do not know how long the sittings will be because the secretive Programming Sub-Committee has yet to meet—dominated as it will be by the Government. All in all, we are being asked simply to accept the Government's view of how their legislation should be scrutinised by the legislature. Surely that is an insult to both the history of the House and its every tradition.
    As we know, the Government rammed the changes through, though they did not have all-party support by any means, and here we are, living with the results of that process. A lot of the principles behind and the approaches to scrutiny, which most of us have held dear for as long as we have had the privilege of being Members of the House, have simply been thrown overboard and replaced by procedures introduced by a Government who are apparently so afraid of their measures being scrutinised that they want to diminish the scrutiny process to an intolerable extent. That is the inevitable outcome of such motions.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that everybody realises that the Government have an enormous majority and can do exactly what they want in the House? Some of us were Members when another Government had a large majority of 144, which was not as big as the majority of the current Government. None the less, that previous Government recognised that the House had its rights and that the Opposition had theirs. Matters were resolved by agreement, but that has gone out of the window. Does my right hon. Friend recognise a constitutional change here?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, I do indeed. Only by the House taking every one of the few opportunities left to explore those matters—which, fortunately, the motion allows us to do—will we be able to expose that change for what it is. It is part and parcel of a process that we have witnessed for nearly four years—the systematic dismantling of all the mechanisms on which our electors thought they could rely to ensure that legislative proposals were scrutinised.
    Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend should perhaps remind the House that the motion
    820
    constitutes a guillotine on when a Bill leaves Committee. Not so very long ago, no Government would introduce a guillotine until an issue had been debated in Committee for 90 or 100 hours. There is, I am afraid, no such criterion in the motion that we are discussing.
    Mr. Forth: Memory tells me that in the 1980s, in the case of a substantial Bill, the benchmark was nearer 150 hours in Committee. Indeed, that was reckoned to be barely sufficient before a guillotine could even be contemplated.
    I can only assume that the Government have introduced the measures with which we are now forced to live because they are both contemptuous of the parliamentary process and afraid of their legislation being properly scrutinised. The motion proposes, rather patronisingly, that
    The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
    That gives us a flavour of what we now face.
    In earlier times, a Committee would by convention spend the morning of its first sitting deliberating on future sittings and considering how much time it would need. It would then adjourn in order to give its members time to reflect on the Bill, and perhaps to table amendments. None of that will be possible now, because the Government are in such a rush and are so anxious to push the legislation through to prevent it from being properly scrutinised.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has touched on the question of amendments. Should the House not be reminded that, in the week permitted by the motion, the Government will not have time properly to formulate amendments in Committee, as is necessary, and will have to rely on amendments made in the other place—amendments which, inevitably, will not be properly debated in this, the elected Chamber?
    Mr. Forth: That leaves me with a personal dilemma. Part of me naturally wants to ensure that the House of Commons, accountable as it is to voters—probably very soon now—will give the most effective scrutiny to, in particular, Bills with a financial or tax content or connotation. Another part of me, however, is beginning to recognise and almost welcome the fact that—given our increasing inability, under the guillotines that the Government are imposing on our legislative process, to scrutinise legislation fully and allow for amendments—the onus will be transferred to another place. It will be for another place to give even closer and more rigorous scrutiny to legislation, because the Government's constraints have prevented us from scrutinising it in the same way. So there is a glimmer of light.
    I shall vote against the motion unless the Minister says something to persuade me not to do so, but I shall leave the Chamber with a spring in my step. I feel that there is potential for the other place to be encouraged to exercise its duties and responsibilities even more vigorously than it has in the past, as a direct result of the Government's attempts, through motions such as this, to restrict and limit the power of this House to scrutinise legislation effectively.
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to focus on what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). This is the second occasion in a week on which we have considered a timetable motion of this kind, and once again the motion is, in my view, an affront. My right hon. Friend presented the arguments against it with great clarity, and I therefore propose merely to summarise them, although I hope to emphasise one or two.
    For a start, we simply do not know whether an end date of 1 February is in any way appropriate. We cannot know that until we know how long the Committee will sit, what its members will deem to be important, and—perhaps even more significant—what people outside the Chamber will deem to be important, and will seek to communicate to those members. It is arrogant and wrong of the Government to put an end date on the Committee.
    The measure precludes proper scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, this is a complicated Bill with tax and national insurance connotations. It is inevitable that Committee members will look to those outside, constituents and interested bodies to make representations on the Bill so that they can table amendments to address the issues. Being realistic, we know that people take a little time to get moving and an end date of 1 February will make it impossible for people outside properly to address the Bill.
    A further point is the status of the other place. Governments always amend Bills. I have been responsible for many Bills and I know that it is the practice of Governments to amend Bills in Committee. They must, because no Bill is perfect, particularly a complicated Bill of this kind. Thus the Government will determine that amendments are to be made and will not be able to formulate them within the time scale for the Committee. They will then seek to table amendments in another place, which is an unelected House dealing with quasi-financial matters. That is very unsatisfactory. The Government will come back to this House—probably on another timetable motion—and we, the elected Chamber, will never have a proper opportunity to discuss amendments.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon and learned Friend said that detail would be left to an unelected House, which, by tradition and constitutional convention, has nothing to do with taxation. This Bill is concerned with national insurance, which is extremely close to taxation. Is the other place even entitled to amend such a Bill?
    Mr. Hogg: Strictly speaking, it is entitled, as a matter of law and constitutional practice, but it is thoroughly undesirable. My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right about the status of the Bill. When Bills of this House attract substantive amendments, they should be amended in this place and not in the other place, unless it is absolutely essential.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) reminded the House that, when our party was in government, we did not move timetable motions in Committee until a long period of time had elapsed. My benchmark was 100 hours; that is in accordance with my right hon. Friend's recollection, although a little short of that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. However, we recognised that there had to be
    822
    a long period before that was appropriate. In our minds, we knew that we could not properly timetable a Committee until it had become plain that what was going on was an unreasonable obstruction in Committee.
    The Government are proposing timetables of but a few hours on matters of great complexity and importance. That is shutting down on the legislative process. If we do that, the country will discover in time that legislation is going through the House of Commons that has never properly been scrutinised. As the acquiesence of the electorate depends, at least in part, on a belief that legislation has been properly scrutinised, we will be tampering with the foundations of accountable government and democracy.
    Sir Peter Emery: Two or three weeks ago, when the Government proposed the procedure, they gave the assurance that enough time would be given for the Opposition to table amendments and for each clause of the Bill to be properly debated. They are reneging on what they said to the House.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right, although I am bound to say that the fact that the Government are reneging causes me no surprise. We are dealing with an essentially despotic and tyrannical Government, although the country as a whole does not recognise that yet. Our business, as legislators, is to draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through you, to the attention of a wider public, that democracy is being served ill by those on the Government Front Bench.
    I have no doubt that timetable motions will be put down regularly. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be opposing them on grounds of principle.
    5 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Sophocles was said to have walked around Athens talking to everybody he met and taking note of their opinions. He then sought to regale his fellow Athenians with exactly the degree of veracity that one gets from a wide selection of citizens.
    What worries me about the increasing habit of timetabling everything is that any Parliament—however it is brought together—must rely on support from the citizenry. I am extremely worried that we are increasingly—for what the managers of Government business probably think are perfectly acceptable reasons—going ahead on the in-built assumption that legislation is simply here to be rolled through the House of Commons and the other place with the greatest speed and the smallest number of alterations that will be acceptable to the Government. I am afraid that I do not take that view, and I do not believe that it can be sustained for any length of time.
    I do not entirely go along with the emotional and colourful language occasionally used on the Conservative Benches about the iniquities of the Government. While I am prepared to call them all sorts of things, despotic is not one of them. Despots, on the whole, tend to be reasonably efficient. Seriously, it saddens me that we are getting to the point where no Labour Member is prepared to say that the procedures of the House of Commons have been developed because there has to be give and take across the Chamber and an examination of various ideas. Above

    823
    all, there has to be an examination of laws. We are talking not about union debates or dinner party disagreements but about laws, which not only have the power to carry sanctions but which affect the people who sent us here.
    I do not want to go on about this matter tonight; I simply want to record that, in the past three weeks, there has been a constant procession of timetable motions. We can call them what we like: guillotines, which is a more accurate description, or timetables. We can say that the House accepted all these "reforms" and suggest that somehow this is an improvement and a modernisation.
    Some of my colleagues occasionally give me the impression that they would rather there were no debate on any subject at all—[Interruption.] That refers to colleagues on both sides of the House. There are people who, when they are in Government, think that it is a good idea that the House of Commons does not debate the iniquities of the legislation before them. When I listen now to those who protest most about why we are allowing this to happen, I remember what they were like when they were Ministers. Once we let a monster out of the pot it is very difficult to get it back in.
    I do not believe that there will be a change of Government in the remainder of my parliamentary career, but such changes do happen in this country, and Conservative Members will be very quick to learn from our behaviour and to pick up those habits that they so roundly condemn. That is why I say to my Government colleagues: please think again. Do not assume that God is always in our corner; occasionally he may desert us. Do not assume that we always know right from wrong and always have absolute right on our side. That is not the case.
    Above all, please remember that legislation that goes through the House like a runaway train frequently comes off the rails at considerable speed and does great damage. The House should bear that in mind. We are increasingly losing sight of the object that a democratic Parliament should keep closest to its heart: legislation works when it is thought about, when it is real, when it represents the views of the ordinary citizen and, most of all, when it is not imposed without real thought and proper consideration.
    5.5 pm
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: In a sense, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is wrong: the Government have moved to a certainty about procedures. The matter is no longer open to debate. The Government are about swank and spin; through their measures on the procedures of the House, they demonstrate their complete contempt for the very existence of the House of Commons.
    Such measures owe nothing whatever to reasoned thought. How do we know what Back Benchers think about the legislation that the Committee will discuss in what the Minister decides will probably be no more than two sittings? Nevertheless, through the Government's graciousness and their relentless and overweening majority, they may give us four sittings. I have not been consulted; in truth, no Member has been consulted. We have not been asked whether aspects of the measure cause us concern, whether we want to develop any points or to take soundings among interested groups in our constituencies.
    824
    All the arguments that are being made are old ones. We used to impose guillotines because there was an insuperable blockage in normal procedural matters. During my time as a Member of the House, such motions have moved from being the exception and have become accustomed procedure Before Christmas, at the behest of the Government, the majority party imposed on us these ludicrous and contemptuous arrangements for the review of Bills.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend puts most eloquently the arguments against timetable motions. Will he remind the House that he makes those arguments from the perspective of someone who actually approves of the Bill? Perhaps that adds greater force to his comments.
    Mr. Shepherd: In the House, we all know that the matter is not whether an individual approves of a Bill; it is to safeguard the processes whereby a Bill is scrutinised. Other points of view may be brought to bear on measures and that may convince me that my original position was wrong. That is the tolerance in our legislative process.
    The Government are now so divorced from the House of Commons that they do not need the House at all. They have reduced us to the absurdity of trying to forecast magically the course of a Committee—the amendments that will be tabled and the length of time to be taken up in debate. In truth, they are not interested. Indeed, the process on motions such as this has been truncated from the intolerable length of three hours to 45 minutes for the discussion of the grievances of hon. Members who think that they may not be able discuss a Bill during its proceedings. That is one of the great modernisations and improvements.
    This procedure is a farce. It is an absurd assertion by an arrogant Government. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a misjudgment in her comments; the attitude and arrogance of the Executive are beyond redemption. There are many decent Members on both sides of the House. There can be no pleasure in the fact that the House has been dragooned into a 45-minute debate; in essence, to approve the motion.
    One can see the exasperation on the faces of Ministers and Government Whips—this is all so trivial. They ask: why do we not nod the motion through? Why bother to seek approval? Why do we not conceive, in the brilliant Modernisation Committee, a Standing Order that gives the Government the right—because they have claimed it—to get their business? That was never an historic concept of the House. The House examined and consented to business, but it could also reject it.
    Such ideas do not even enter the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as he proposes these arrangements without ever having asked for the views of Back-Bench colleagues on either side of the House. That is why I oppose the motion. It crystallises something that I have resented and regretted all my life. From being an occasional necessity, such arrangements have become the instrument of the Executive's dominance over the Chamber and show their contempt for the House.
    5.10 pm
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: This is a very serious matter indeed, and the country needs to understand it. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member

    825
    for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, and the tone in which she said it. I have a high regard for the Minister and have served with him on a long and carefully thought-through Committee on the financial services. I am sure that he would not propose such measures if they were not being forced on the House from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer downwards, given the Government's attitude.
    It has been said that the Government are despotic and tyrannical, but those words sound old fashioned and out of date. The Government are certainly arrogant; they are bullying the House. It is unnecessary for them to bully the House. The Government are also bullying the country and the other place, and they are producing very bad legislation.
    Why have the Government introduced the Bill? There can be no argument about the fact that they are incompetent. They are amending legislation that they introduced only in past year or so, because provisions that were not properly thought through now have to be changed. To some extent, the changes that they propose are sensible and, therefore, we suggested in our reasoned amendment that they needed modifying, but we did not oppose the whole Bill. However, the Bill needs to be carefully scrutinised not only by the House—as can be seen on television around the world, by those with Sky and so on—but by those in the City of London, the CBI and financial services generally, as well as by those in all the places where small businesses congregate and consider such matters. They must have time to propose amendments.
    Let the country know what is proposed in this small, technical, but important Bill. The Government will ram the Bill through. The Committee is supposed to consider the Bill carefully and constructively, but it must take no more than eight days to do so. This week will be taken up in trying to determine exactly when the Bill will be debated in Committee. That effectively leaves only 30 January and 1 February for the Bill to be considered in Committee. That is five and seven days, or six and eight days ahead, so the small business groups, the City groups or the taxation accountants, who have already helped us on Second Reading, have no chance to consider whether the Government have got it right and to propose constructive amendments. That is very bad government indeed.
    Let everyone know that the Government are thoroughly unreasonable and that, day after day, they are timetabling—guillotining—every Bill that they introduced in this short Session before the general election. They are throwing aside the traditions that have existed for the 22 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, when my party has had two very large majorities.
    Let us not consider the proposals blindly. We can modernise sensibly. There have been some suggestions for sensible modernisation. In the past, Committees used to sit for 80 or 150 hours in Committee before a guillotine motion was introduced. Those hours were often used stupidly. The then Opposition felt that they could do nothing but ramble on indefinitely because time was their only weapon, and only the first or second clause of a Bill was debated. However, we have exactly the same amount time available proportionately—there are the same number of days in the weeks and the same hours in the day as there were in the 1980s, when such a Bill would
    826
    never have needed to be guillotined. We could have used those 80 hours constructively on getting the legislation right.
    From the top, the Government—from the Chief Whip, the Leader of House and the Prime Minister himself—are unnecessarily denying Parliament the opportunity to give legislation serious scrutiny. That is a disgrace. The country is being misgoverned; the House is being mismanaged; the Government are responsible, and the country should hold them to account for it at the election.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I strongly agree with all that has been said so far in the debate, including that by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, something she said should perhaps be corrected, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) could have done so, but from personal modesty, which we all know is one of his qualities, he refrained from doing so. It is not true that to say there was no opposition to the introduction of timetable motions under the previous Government. Indeed, such motions were opposed in principle.
    My hon. Friend courageously opposed the principle of the programme motions introduced by the Administration formed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, those motions had been introduced after perhaps 100 or more hours of debate in Committee. Such arrangements have existed since the 19th century, but they were emergency provisions intended to deal with abuse. They were used to timetable Bills that were clearly being obstructed. The Government have turned those emergency powers into a weapon. They were intended to be used exceptional circumstances in response to abuses, but the Executive now use them regularly. Just as Governments around the world have abused emergency provisions to seize power, overthrow democracy and so on, those powers are being similarly turned into a regular, routine procedure, which the Government effectively use to suppress the legislature's rights.
    Those hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon—indeed, those in the Public Gallery—have been here on an unfortunate, but memorable occasion. I could hardly believe something that the Minister said; I have never heard the like in my 13 and a half years as a Member. Speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Government, he suggested that the Committee would need only two sittings to deal with the Bill, but in a moment of generosity, the Government were prepared to concede to four.
    Mr. Hogg: I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber last night, but as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), such suggestions are becoming the norm for Ministers. During yesterday's timetable motion, the Minister for Public Health said that only two weeks would be sufficient to consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill in Committee. It is now the habit of Ministers to form a view on how much time is required in Committee.
    Mr. Davies: Unfortunately, I have been aware for some time that the procedure has been abused and that timetable

    827
    motions are not the exception but the rule. However, until this afternoon, I had not heard a Minister say, with such brutal frankness, that he would determine exactly how long a Committee needs to do its job. Let us briefly examine the statement that the Committee will need only two sittings, or perhaps four if it wants. What does that mean? How can the Minister possibly know that the Committee requires two sittings, rather than any other number?
    The Minister is responsible for introducing the Bill, so he presumably thinks that it is perfect. If he had been aware that something was wrong with it, that it had some shortcomings or that it contained inadequacies or contradictions, presumably his duty would have been to get those points right before presenting it to the House. So, in his mind, the House needs no time at all to consider the Bill. He certainly cannot determine how long it needs, but he has said that it needs two days. Let us suppose that, in his modesty, he accepts that the House needs time to consider the Bill, that the job that he and the Executive have done cannot be perfect, that we should not live under an elective dictatorship, that there should be a balance between the Executive and legislature and that the legislature still has a role. If he accepts all that, how can he possibly determine whether the Bill should have two, four or 24 days in Committee?
    The Minister cannot anticipate the Bill's shortcomings. If he could do, it would not have those shortcomings. If there are other difficulties that he has not anticipated, how can he possibly determine the time frame that Parliament will need to consider the issues? Therefore, his remarks on behalf of the Executive were not only arrogant and unacceptable, but they were meaningless. They just show that he had not begun to think through the issues before he tried to impose the timetable motion on us. That is extremely sad.
    The Government have shown contempt not only for Parliament, but for the 56 million people of this country who still believe that Parliament has a role in the legislative process. If members of the public have a point to make about impending legislation, they look forward to the Committee stage as the only moment when they will have an opportunity to express their ideas to Committee members. The public hope that the Committee will take those ideas seriously and that they will be examined and debated. Clearly, that process is dead; it no longer takes place. All the people with faith in Parliament are under a childlike and naive illusion. That is a sad fact, but we must recognise it.
    5.21 pm
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am glad that I shall have more than 10 seconds to speak, which is how long I had when I spoke in the debate on the programme motion on the Armed Forces Bill.
    I agree with the arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and particularly with those put by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The Executive simply sees Parliament ramming legislation through without any amendments of worth being tabled by Members of the legislature. I sometimes wonder whether we are a legislature at all. The way in which the Government have used the programme motions illustrates that.
    828
    I want to consider the position of individual Members of Parliament. I wanted to be on the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill, because I know something about the subject and wanted to make a contribution in such a Committee. I have no idea whether I will be appointed to the Standing Committee considering this Bill, but I could be. I am not an expert on social security and national insurance contributions, so it is quite likely that I will be appointed, particularly given the way in which the Government carry on. They are likely to appoint Labour Back Benchers with no knowledge of the subject, because that is precisely what they did on the Armed Forces Bill. The Select Committee on that Bill for which Government Members, in particular, voted comprises seven Members from the governing party and none of them has served in the armed forces or on the Select Committee on Defence. Only two Opposition Back Benchers will be on the Committee considering the Bill.
    The Committee structure for the Armed Forces Bill provides one occasion in which a Select Committee can take evidence, go on visits and, to a degree, hold the Government to account. That Bill is different from other Bills. However, the arrangements for this year's Bill show the Government's arrogance.
    If a Back Bencher were appointed to the Standing Committee considering this Bill, he would presumably be appointed tomorrow. Therefore, if he is not an expert on the subject, he would have a short time in which to be able to understand the complicated issues involved. I served on the Committee considering the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. Even though I was familiar with military law, I had to sit down with a wet towel on my head to work out my own amendments. I tabled about 100 amendments that were not suggested by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. It took a great deal of work and concentration for me to be able to contribute meaningfully in Committee.
    I am a not an expert on the subject covered by this Bill and to invite me to sit on a Committee that would have to complete its consideration by 1 February would be a disgrace. It would be a contempt of the House and its individual Members. The motion should be opposed.
    5.25 pm
    Mr. Timms: With the leave of House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not recognise the characterisation of our procedures that has been so passionately denounced by —
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 152.

    Division No. 76]

    [5.25 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Banks, Tony

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beard, Nigel

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Ashton, Joe

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Benton, Joe

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Bailey, Adrian

    Berry, Roger

    829

    Best, Harold

    Goggins, Paul

    Betts, Clive

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Blackman, Liz

    Grocott, Bruce

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Grogan, John

    Borrow, David

    Hain, Peter

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Hanson, David

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Healey, John

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Burden, Richard

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Hendrick, Mark

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Heppell, John

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Cann, Jamie

    Hill, Keith

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hoey, Kate

    Casale, Roger

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Caton, Martin

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hume, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hurst, Alan

    Clapham, Michael

    Hutton, John

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Illsley, Eric

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Clelland, David

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Jamieson, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    Jenkins, Brian

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cohen, Harry

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Coleman, Iain

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Colman, Tony

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Joyce, Eric

    Corston, Jean

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cousins, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Cranston, Ross

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Crausby, David

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Cummings, John

    Kemp, Fraser

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Kidney, David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Darvill, Keith

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Davidson, Ian

    Lammy, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Dawson, Hilton

    Laxton, Bob

    Denham, John

    Lepper, David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dobbin, Jim

    Levitt, Tom

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Doran, Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Dowd, Jim

    Lock, David

    Drew, David

    Love, Andrew

    Drown, Ms Julia

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Edwards, Huw

    Macdonald, Calum

    Efford, Clive

    McDonnell, John

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    McFall, John

    Ennis, Jeff

    McIsaac, Shona

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    McNulty, Tony

    Flint, Caroline

    MacShane, Denis

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McWaltor, Tony

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    McWilliam, John

    Galloway, George

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Gapes, Mike

    Mallaber Judy

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Martlew Eric

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Maxton, John

    830

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Singh, Marsha

    Merron, Gillian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Snape, Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Soley, Clive

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Spellar, John

    Mountford, Kali

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mudie, George

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stringer, Graham

    Olner, Bill

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Pearson, Ian

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pike, Peter L

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Timms, Stephen

    Pollard, Kerry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pond, Chris

    Todd, Mark

    Pope, Greg

    Touhig, Don

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Trickett, Jon

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Truswell, Paul

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Watts, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    White, Brian

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rooney, Terry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Ruane, Chris

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wills, Michael

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Winnick, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wood, Mike

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Woolas, Phil

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Amess, David

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Chidgey, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Chope, Christopher

    Baldry, Tony

    Clappison, James

    Ballard, Jackie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Collins, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cotter, Brian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cran, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Brazier, Julian

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Breed, Colin

    Duncan, Alan

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Burnett, John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Burns, Simon

    Evans, Nigel

    Burstow, Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    831

    Fallon, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Madel, Sir David

    Flight, Howard

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Malins, Humfrey

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Maples, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Moore, Michael

    Fraser, Christopher

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Gale, Roger

    Oaten, Mark

    Garnier, Edward

    Öpik, Lembit

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Page, Richard

    Gibb, Nick

    Paice, James

    Gidley, Sandra

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Randall, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Green, Damian

    Rendel, David

    Greenway, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Ruffley, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Harvey, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hayes, John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

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

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Horam, John

    Spring, Richard

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Syms, Robert

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Keetch, Paul

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Key, Robert

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Trend, Michael

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tyler, Paul

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lansley, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Leigh, Edward

    Walter, Robert

    Letwin, Oliver

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Webb, Steve

    Lidington, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Livsey, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Loughton, Tim

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tellers for the Noes:

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Mr. James Gray and

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    Business of the House
    5.39 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,

    That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.

    The motion is necessary to enable paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14 to function properly. That provision states:
    Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.
    The motion to appoint those days has been on the Order Paper for some time. Clearly, some right hon. and hon. Members want to debate the matter. It is an important principle that private Members have time on the Floor of the House specifically for their business. The dates allocated by the motion are designed to give private Members' Fridays a similar pattern to those in preceding Sessions: seven Fridays for Second Readings, followed by a gap and a more leisurely series of dates for remaining stages.
    It is important that that time is available. Although private Members' Bills can be derided as ineffective, a surprising number ate enacted each year. In the years between 1964 and 1993, 10 to 15 private Members' Bills, on average, were passed each Session. Twenty-one such Bills were passed in 1996 –97, when some were given Government time, and even in recent years, six or seven private Members' Bills have reached the statute book each Session.
    Private Members' Bills have tidied up the statute book. The Lord Chancellor (Terms of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 made it possible for the post of Lord Chancellor to be held by a Catholic. Private Members' Bills have dealt with matters that affect small groups. The Motorcycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 permits Sikhs to wear turbans, rather than helmets. When we drive past a gaggle of riding school children all securely helmeted, we see the results of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990. Private Members' Bills have extended the effectiveness of the House. The National Audit Office owes its existence to the National Audit Act 1983—a private Member's Bill.
    Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way. Will he explain to the House why then are not more dates earlier, when they might not be damaged by an election, and more dates later, which would not be available if the most likely election date, early May, materialised?
    Mr. Tipping: I have learned one thing during my time in the House: never to speculate on the date of an election. There is every possibility that the House could sit for another year and more.
    There is an honourable tradition whereby private Members' Bills have been used to force Governments to

    833
    face social issues that they would rather duck. The book "How Parliament Works" notes:
    Private Members' Acts have brought about the abolition of the death penalty, the legislation on abortion and homosexuality and the end of theatre censorship.
    Even when they are defeated, private Members' Bills can have huge influence. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill may have been defeated in the 1993 –94 Session, but the Government were forced to introduce their own Disability Discrimination Bill in the next Session. I am sure that hon. Members can think of further examples.
    There have been calls for private Members' Bills to be given a better chance of success. The motion allocates a mere 13 Fridays. Perhaps, some say, the procedure should be relaxed to counterbalance such a limited time. The Procedure Committee considered the matter in 1994–95 and commented at paragraph 18 that
    it is a matter for debate whether a majority in the House, not supported by electoral mandate, should be allowed to overcome serious objections from a minority of members on one issue.
    It concluded that
    any significant change in procedure which enabled a minority to pass through the House a bill inconsistent with the policy objectives of the Government majority is unrealistic and a breach of the conventions under which private Members' bill procedure has operated. Such a change could also have a dangerous consequence in that it would enable the Government majority to use the same procedure to drive through the House a private Member's bill to which there was substantial but minority opposition.
    Our motion tonight simply allocates the time required by Standing Orders.
    In the past, some private Members' Bills have been taken through all their stages on a single day. Now hon. Members tend to insist that no Bill should be passed without debate. Given the limited time, that reduces the chances of success. Some may argue that the chances of success are so small that it is pointless for the House to approve the motion. However, private Members' Bills and the time allocated to them offer unrivalled opportunities for procedural training and tactics. We all know the need to have our supporters present and correct at 9.30 am and to have sufficient numbers to secure a closure.
    However important private Members' Bills are in themselves, and however great the procedural amusement they provide, the key reason why the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 should be implemented remains that Standing Orders allocate the time to private Members and they should be given it. I invite the House to agree to the motion, which will put the Standing Orders into effect.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary opening the debate on a matter that is clearly important to Back Benchers. Private Members' Bills are peculiarly their province. As the hon. Gentleman said, the motion has been on the Order Paper for some time. It is clear from the presence of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they have some anxieties and concerns about the way in which the matter is being presented, about which we shall hear more presently.
    I shall not get involved in discussion of the number of days allocated. Those who want to raise their concerns will do so. In view of the fact that the motion has consistently been objected to since it first appeared on the
    834
    Order Paper, it is unfortunate that we have not had an earlier opportunity to debate it, so that Back Benchers could express their views. One has the impression that the Government hoped that by reintroducing the motion time and again, the objections would simply go away. [Interruption.] I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was apparent that the issue would not go away, as there were matters that needed to be discussed.
    On one matter, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that, historically, the purpose of private Members' Bills was to enable Back Benchers to bring before the House matters that would require a considerable degree of unanimity in order to reach the statute book. I was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman present an exposé of the reasons for that, with which I heartily concurred.
    I hope that I will not be considered to be out of order if I gently point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that having adhered to that policy in respect of the Hunting Bill when it was a private Member's Bill—the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—and seen it consigned to oblivion by the House for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman articulated, the Government, for reasons which remain incomprehensible, saw fit to reintroduce it in Government time, when every argument that the hon. Gentleman has just advanced would militate against that. I found that telling. Perhaps at the end of the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary will amplify his remarks. A better justification for not proceeding as the Government did after the failure of a private Member's Bill would be difficult to find.
    I am happy to listen carefully to the objections that are likely to be raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the number of days allocated and to other matters connected with private Members' Bills and the business of the House.
    5.48 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, we have finally got the motion on the Floor of the House, where it belongs, and we have an opportunity to debate it. However, I wonder whether it is too late.
    The Government seem to have taken the attitude that such matters are entitled to be nodded through by the House, without proper debate or consideration, and they are learning the hard way that that simply is not the case. When the Government say, "We believe that a certain number of days should be allocated to this or that", they should not assume that the House will acquiesce.
    As the debate is entitled "Business of the House", the House should debate it. It is only slightly to the credit of the Minister that he has been brought to the House kicking and screaming, at the last minute, reluctantly to present the matter to the House, when it is far too late to do anything about it.
    That is important because the matter was first presented to the House before Christmas. It should have been dealt with then, as there was time for those who opposed it to say why we felt that it was inadequate or inappropriate. We are now at a late date in January. We are asked to agree that the private Member's Bill cycle, to which the Minister alluded, should start very soon, on 2 February,

    835
    and that only two days will be allocated in February. The Government care so little about private Members' Bills that we are then to go away for a month before resuming the process on 9 March.
    I presume that the Committee of Selection will sit on the Wednesday after the first of the two Fridays, so 14 February would be the first day available for Committee proceedings. Therefore, even if a private Member's Bill were to get a Second Reading in the House on one of the first two Fridays and to get through Committee in one sitting, the first day on which it could possibly come back to the Floor for Report or Third Reading would be 9 March.
    Hon. Members who have gone through the private Member's Bill process know that it is not always to their delight or advantage, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would agree. The Government have taken so long to seek to resolve the matter on the Floor of the House that they have put private Members' Bills in jeopardy. They have taken so long because there may be an election.
    It is not good enough for the Minister to say, in his bland way, that we must not discuss whether there is going to be an election. The entire country assumes that there will be an election in April or May. That makes it incumbent on the Government to make more proper provision for private Members' Bills than appears in the motion.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend is being too generous to the Government. The chances are that the House will be dissolved at the end of March. Private Members' legislation has to get through the other place, so it is probable that none will become law in this Session. Is not the motion therefore bogus?
    Mr. Forth: If so, it would cause me no loss of sleep. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to remind the House that a private Member's Bill, like any other, must be dealt with in another place. If necessary, it must return to the House of Commons before it reaches the statute book. My point is that holding a general election in April or May—or even June or July—would put at risk all the private Members' Bills that have been balloted.
    So casual is the Government's attitude in this matter, as in so many others, that they have allowed a month to pass since the motion first appeared, since when no attention has been paid to it. If we end up with no private Members' Bills in this Session, we shall know whom to blame—the Government. Their attitude to such Bills is hostile, and they kill about 30 or 40 of them every year. I should be happy to provide any hon. Member who so wishes with an analysis.
    The Government have dealt with this piece of business very casually. They have assumed that the House will accept everything that they do, but that assumption is false. The debate allows us to say to the Government that they should not assume that they have killed the House of Commons. They have done a pretty good job of strangulation, but the body is not yet quite dead. The House is still capable of exercising some of the powers that have been left to it.
    836
    The other message to the Government is that they should not think that they will get away lightly with treating private Members' Bills so casually. My analysis shows that the Government have left private Members' Bills with little or no chance of reaching the statute book. To many hon. Members, that will seem a great pity.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for, in effect, triggering this debate. He has exposed the fact that the Government do not want any private Members' Bills to pass through the House in this Session.
    The motion first appeared on the Order Paper before Christmas. I was among those hon. Members who objected to it. We wanted the matter to be brought to the Floor of the House much earlier, so that it could be discussed fully. However, the Government waited for a month before the opinion of the House could be heard. The result is that no private Members' legislation will succeed this Session—unless the Government approve of the Bill involved.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst analysed the timetable, and he is right to say that the House would be dissolved near the end of March if there is to be a general election in May, which seems probable. Any legislation would have to get through Second Reading, Committee and Report stages, and then go to the other place. Lords amendments, if any, would then have to be considered in the House of Commons, and then Royal Assent would have to be granted. It would not be possible for any private Member's Bill that was one whit controversial to get through that process by the end of March. The Government are seeking to frustrate the passage of private Members' legislation. We need to identify the bogosity—if that is a word—of the Government's attitude.
    My right hon. Friend and I agree about many things, such as the hateful nature of the Government, but we differ about the desirability of private Members' legislation. My right hon. Friend is a great strangler of such legislation, and would say that he is broadly against it. I am broadly in favour of the process, but I am careful about which Bills I support. I am in favour of the process because it gives hon. Members the opportunity to identify issues that are important to themselves or to interest groups.
    Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of what Sir Winston Churchill said in 1931? When asked about private Members' Bills, he said:
    I am not very anxious to help private Members' Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend, the great strangler, makes a very good case. Most private Members' Bills need to be treated with great caution, and I have voted against an awful lot of them because it is awfully easy for

    837
    people's wishful thinking, in an ill-attended House on a Friday, to go through the statutory process and suddenly become law.
    Mr. Forth: Not any more.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend, the great strangler, makes it less probable than it used to be, and I am very glad that he does, but it does not alter the fact that the private Members' process is a good one for identifying issues. Usually, private Members are wrong when it comes to the expression of those solutions in statutory form, but they are often right in identifying the issue, which then triggers debate and may trigger more sensible legislation. Occasionally, the private Members' process is a good vehicle for passing very minor measures, which otherwise would not attract Government time, but which are passed because the private Members' system provides an opportunity. For those reasons I am in favour of the process, although I view with concern many of the Bills that emerge from it.
    That brings me to my next point. Thirteen days on which private Members' legislation will get precedence is not enough, especially as we have a Government who are over-mighty and oppressive of the interests of minorities. I would like private Members' legislation to get precedence on more days, not because I particularly want the Bills to be passed, but because I want private Members to have an opportunity to articulate their concerns on matters that arise from their constituencies or matters of national interest.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has given us the opportunity to highlight these issues. The motion could have gone through on the nod. The Government would have preferred it to do so, because they do not like debate. We on the Back Benches, who are standing up for the privileges of Parliament, do like debate, and because debate in the House is being so severely truncated by Ministers, they must expect us to take every opportunity to debate issues of importance.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) was responsible for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. She will remember that I strongly disagreed with that when we debated it, but it was an example of a matter that it was proper for a Back Bencher to raise. I disapproved of the outcome, I disapproved of the Bill, I protested against it and I protest now, but that type of thing should be encouraged because it enables Members to express their views and those of their constituents.
    I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has triggered this debate, and I hope that he will trigger many more such debates. I am playing my modest part in encouraging that debate.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. John Redwood: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to the extent that they were saying the same things—which, on the whole, they were.
    Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I believe that we have too much legislation. The limited number of forms of conduct that are
    838
    unacceptable and need to be made crimes and offences are already crimes and offences, and there is no need to add unduly to the list, using up much parliamentary time and incurring great expense.
    Most of the legislation that is passed under the present Government is vexatious, regulatory, meddlesome, intervening and interfering, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends usually vote against it. I would not welcome the introduction of much more similar legislation in the shape of private Members' Bills connived at or encouraged by the Government.
    However, if I had to choose whether the time of the House should be a little more occupied by the ideas of private Members or by those of the Government, I would prefer the former, because it is just conceivable that one of my colleagues would come up with an interesting idea that did need attention in a legislative way, whereas I find that Her Majesty's Government usually comes up with ideas that are vexatious, meddlesome and intervening.
    Mr. Hogg: The more days private Members have, the fewer days are available for the vexatious, oppressive and tyrannical.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend was ahead of me in my argument. The great advantage of allowing more private Members' days is that it might limit the number of Government days, and so reduce the amount of meddlesome and unnecessary legislation that is introduced.
    I object to the way in which modernisation has been steamrollered through the House. The motion could have been discussed before Christmas or two or three weeks ago, when the debate would have been more relevant and timely and more options would have been available to the Government in the light of the feelings of the House. We are discussing it today because the Government have decided to steamroller and dragoon; to cheat the House of Commons of proper debate and scrutiny; and to decide, of their own initiative, what we shall discuss and when, instead of allowing the usual channels—the normal dialogue between the main parties in the House—to settle what is important and what is not so important and to make progress with Government business, given that the Opposition have a right to a certain amount of choice as to what to highlight and what to debate.
    The normal procedures have broken down because the Government have behaved in a typically arrogant and overweening way, and some Opposition Members will continue to debate these procedural matters until the Government understand that trust has been broken and needs to be restored.
    I regard it as part of the Government's cynical plot to sideline the powers of the House, and the rights of the individual Members of the House, to choose a very limited number of dates for private Members' business before a likely general election at the beginning of May, and to choose another series of dates that will obviously fall, given that the election now looks almost certain to be on that date or slightly earlier.
    The Government have allowed the expectations to build up. They have not attempted to dampen those expectations or to suggest that there are other serious dates, so this afternoon the House must conclude that they have cynically chosen a series of dates so that, as my right

    839
    hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, no private Member's Bill can conceivably pass—unless the Government suddenly get behind one and make additional arrangements to dragoon a measure through the House and the other place very quickly indeed.
    It is all part of the pattern of a party that thinks that, because it has so many seats in the House of Commons, it has the right to do what it likes when it likes, without courtesy, without discussion, without proper debate and without asking those of us who represent the other interests and viewpoints of the nation what we consider to be relevant and how legislation might be improved or modified.
    One thing that I used to value, as a Minister of the Crown, was that dialogue in Committee and in hard-fought debates on the Floor of the House, when the Chair would allow—and the Minister was happy to accept the ruling of the Chair—the debate to run on because the Opposition had a serious point. I thought that it was my job as a Minister either to have what I thought was a better argument and argue it through, or to give a bit of ground because I or my officials had missed something important and the legislation needed to be modified. I never thought that it was my job to get angry with the Opposition and say that they had no right to a life or existence and no right to a view, and that we would immediately impose a guillotine to ensure that we could not debate those things.
    The art of being a good Minister is to tempt, persuade and cajole the House into agreement, and work out a way of living with the Opposition, so that the Opposition may have their day or two in court on the things that really matter to them and, as a result, are more prepared to allow the Government's business to pass.
    Mr. Richard Burden: I have something of a vested interest in the matter, having drawn No. 1 in the private Members' Bill ballot. I have been following what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been saying and their objections to the dates in the motion and the amount of time allowed. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and the other Opposition Members who have spoken might like to express their views, too.
    If, theoretically—accepting that hon. Members have objections to the dates and the frequency—a private Member's Bill was introduced to the House that secured public support, and on which there was agreement in the House that it was a sensible measure, would it be sensible, in the interests of the dialogue that the right hon. Member is talking about, for that private Member's Bill to be blocked to make a point about procedure, even if the substance of the Bill was sensible?
    Mr. Redwood: There are so many ifs in that question that I fear I cannot be tempted into giving either the friendly answer that the hon. Gentleman would obviously like or an unfriendly one, which would be unfair, given the number of hypotheticals that he has advanced. I believe that he should mainly address his remarks to Ministers. The reason that he is very unlikely to get his
    840
    Bill passed is that Ministers are not making enough days available. The reason that he is very unlikely to get full co-operation from all of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the Opposition are exceedingly angry about the way in which business is being dragooned through the House.
    I notice a pattern developing. When the Government began imposing guillotines on everything—obviously, wanting to limit the number of days for private Members' business is part of that—they were so arrogant that they would not tell the House anything about their thinking. Then they would just explain a little. Today we have had rather fuller explanation and a little bit of flexibility. That is welcome, but it is still nothing like the proper flexibility that a mature House of Commons has enjoyed in the past and expects from its ministerial team. Ministers should be prepared to engage in debate. They should not be shy of private Members' business having more days for debate, and they should not wish to carry on in this ridiculous fashion, believing that they can steamroller anything that they like through without proper discussion.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is normally a more reasonable and accommodating Minister than many of his more senior colleagues, will take this message away and think about it. There is a very strong feeling, which I suspect is shared on the Labour Back Benches, that Back-Bench private Members' business and Back-Bench private Members' views are not getting enough airtime, are not being taken seriously and are not being engaged in debate by the Government, and that the Government should mend their ways—otherwise, they might find that the feeling of hon. Members in this place that they are anti-democratic and authoritarian spreads into the country at a very sensitive time for them, when they are facing re-election.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. Christopher Chope: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is not seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to participate in our debate, as he is the potential beneficiary of the ballot, which is the parliamentary equivalent of the national lottery. There is no constitutional reason for having a general election this Session: there are only political reasons for having one. The Government may well wish to cut and run before people catch up with all their misdeeds, including those of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about which, I understand, we shall read more in tomorrow's newspapers.
    The Government may well cut and run, but it seemed from the intervention of the hon. Member for Northfield that he is already looking for scapegoats. He is going to try to find a scapegoat for the eventual failure of his Bill in the interventions of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, if his Bill fails, the Government should be the scapegoat, as they will have failed to provide sufficient time for it in this Session before running for cover in a general election.
    Mr. Burden: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) did not answer my question, so I shall put the same question to the hon. Gentleman. My point is very

    841
    simple: if the hon. Gentleman felt that a piece of legislation was sensible, would he join in blocking that legislation purely to make a procedural point?
    Mr. Chope: I would always vote, as far as I could, on the merits of the legislation. Having considered, albeit briefly, the alleged merits of the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill, I am not sure that I am convinced of them. Obviously, if we had the chance of a full debate, we would be able to explore that more fully.
    Mr. Forth: As we are talking about making law, I hope that my hon. Friend would always insist that every Bill was properly debated on Second Reading, received proper consideration in Committee, on Report and Third Reading, and was considered properly in another place. I hope that, along with me, my hon. Friend would insist that anything destined to reach the statute book went through all of those stages in detail.
    Mr. Chope: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend, as there are too many examples of legislation that has been cobbled together by the Government and supported by the Opposition—whoever they were at the time—only for us to find out that it is probably the worst legislation ever passed by the House. It is essential that legislation is subject to proper scrutiny.
    I am concerned on behalf of all those who have been successful in the ballot. I do not know whether the Minister has the required authority, but the Prime Minister could certainly come to the House tomorrow and say that there has been a lot of speculation about a general election in this Session. He could say that, as the Government have the largest majority that a party in government has had in a generation, there is no need to go to the country on constitutional grounds this Session. He could therefore announce that there would not be a general election until October at the earliest.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could also have said that they would bring the process forward? We have already had non-sitting Fridays this month since we came back from the Christmas recess. Fridays have already been frittered away by the Government, yet the Government are delaying the consideration of private Members' Bills. Does my hon. Friend not see irony in that?
    Mr. Chope: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is right. Because we had a late Queen's Speech, strict timetables are laid down in the rules of the House on the presentation of Bills. I do not think that Bills could have received a Second Reading until they had been presented and printed.
    Mr. Hogg: There is another way forward. My hon. Friend will know that members of the Government are always boasting that they will win the next general election. Well, we shall see about that. However, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that they will. It would be perfectly possible for them to promise the House that, in the event—however unlikely—of their winning the election, they would provide additional dates to consider private Members' Bills to compensate Members promoting such Bills for the dates in this Session that have been stolen from them.
    Mr. Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point which, I hope, will be taken up and become
    842
    part of the Conservative manifesto. I am sure that that would be very popular. If there is a general election in spring, and a Conservative Government returned victorious, with a Queen's Speech in, say, May or June, we would be in for a long first Session. During that Session, there should be scope to give substantially more time to consideration of private Members' Bills than they normally receive.
    Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
    Mr. Chope: I see that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench wishes to intervene. I hope that she will say that that is going to happen.
    Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely sensible suggestion which, I assure him, will be discussed at the highest levels.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All that I need now is for the Minister similarly to say that my proposal will be discussed at the very highest levels. I hope that he will be able to give me that assurance when he winds up our debate. However, I thank him for his courtesy, as he did not open our debate peremptorily by saying: "This is the motion—take it or leave it." He spoke for five or six minutes and explained a bit about the background, history and importance of the issue. The Minister understands the importance of Parliament and the House in debating these issues. It is a pity that some of his friends in Government do not seem to have the same respect for the importance of discussions in the House.
    The motion was tabled and consistently blocked: sometimes my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was involved in that and had to be in the House for longer hours than perhaps even the Minister. My right hon. Friend had to go to all that effort to enable us to have this debate today. Other hon. Members also participated in that procedure.
    This is an important debate in what is, more or less, prime time. I hope that it will provide the Government with an opportunity to say that there will not be an election until October so that all of the Back Benchers who have been lucky in the ballot can exercise their lottery right to have their day out. Our debate also gives the Minister an opportunity to discuss extra opportunities for Labour Back Benchers in the next Parliament.
    Mr. John Bercow: Naturally, all Conservative Members await the onset of the general election campaign with relish and nothing else. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that his enthusiasm for maximum time to debate private Members' Bills is not unqualified or unconditional? When he sees some of the nanny-state, interfering, regulating, tinkering, mollycoddling contents of some of those Bills, his enthusiasm may abate.
    Mr. Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I would defend to the death the right of Members, however misguided, to put their proposition to the House and have it debated. I am not saying that I will agree with all those nanny-state propositions: far from it. However, it is right that people should have a chance to advance them. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) thinks that it is important to legislate on the

    843
    issue of high hedges. I am not sure how that will be achieved successfully, but I hope that we will be able to have a full debate on the matter.
    The Government have already promised to legislate on high hedges—or, rather, they have given the impression that they will legislate on them. However, in practice, they are not introducing a Bill on high hedges because they obviously realise that it is extremely difficult to get even a proper definition of a hedge that will satisfy people at large. I certainly receive more letters about high hedges than about hunting.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to wander a little bit from the motion, but now I really must bring him back to the main motion.
    Mr. Chope: High hedges are the subject of the third private Member's Bill to be presented, which, I understand, will be debated on the third Friday: that specific date is on the Order Paper. I hope that my remarks about legislation on high hedges are in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not say much more about those hedges now, although I hope that when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government, having promised to legislate, have not introduced legislation on them. That would allow us to see the colour of such legislation and whether it would meet the needs of our constituents.
    6.19 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I, too, have a vested interest in the debate, as I was sixth in the lottery for private Members' Bills. I am in an interesting position because—although there is nothing official, in writing, to guide the public—the received wisdom is that there will be a 3 May general election, so that my Adoption Bill would be considered on the last Friday before Dissolution. The restriction on the number of available Fridays is therefore very pertinent to my position.
    In my short time in the House, I have learned to keep within the spirit of private Members' Bills by choosing an issue on which there is very broad agreement. I therefore chose as the subject of my Bill the reform of adoption law. It is rather fortuitous that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who is responsible for the issue, is in the Chamber. He will be very familiar with the correspondence that we have exchanged on the subject.
    I should like to pick up on various issues raised in the debate by Opposition Members, not the least of which is the late starting date of this Session, as that seems to be the key reason why we may be up against the problem of an impossible timetable for considering a private Member's Bill that enjoys very broad support. Indeed, the reason why consideration of almost all private Members' Bills in this Session is an academic matter is that the previous Session ran so late into last calendar year. The public will find that very difficult to understand.
    There has been great support for the subject of my Bill—the reform of adoption law—and the public will be incredulous that the Government seem to regard foxhunting as a more important legislative priority than
    844
    children in need of adoption. The Government's priorities have left some of my constituents and British adoption agencies bemused, to say the least.
    I very deliberately chose adoption as the subject of my Bill to try to add a bit of pressure on the Government to introduce the reforms that, in July 2000, in debates on the Care Standards Act 2000, they undertook to make. Back in July, we were given assurances that legislation would be forthcoming, and the Prime Minister had just conducted a review of adoption. Indeed, the Opposition gave Ministers the opportunity to add new provisions to the 2000 Act to introduce the reforms that the Prime Minister said he wanted. That offer was refused, and we were told to wait for later Government legislation.
    We waited for the Queen's Speech, but there was nothing in it about adoption reform. Consequently, I have taken the opportunity to address the issue in my Bill. Moreover, I generously offered in writing to allow Ministers to use that opportunity to introduce their own draft Bill to reform adoption law. However, my offer was churlishly rejected on the grounds that a private Member's Bill would be piecemeal and could not possibly introduce such legislation. Well, Ministers were already making a mighty assumption about what my Bill should contain. As the Minister of State knows, I have told him that my Bill should contain the White Paper proposals which have received consensual support and require primary legislation. That offer was generously made.
    Last week, at Prime Minister's questions, the plot seemed to thicken. In answer to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that the Government would introduce legislation in this Session to reform adoption. That was very interesting. We have probed the Government on the matter of "this Session" because, as we are all aware, it seems that there is not a great deal left of this Session.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government's legislative priorities are perverse and are likely to be regarded with rank disdain by millions of people who believe that the adoption issue should be properly addressed long before and instead of that of hunting, does she agree that the great danger is that the Government will not want to reach that sixth Friday, for they will not want to suffer the public opprobrium to which they would be subject if her patient and articulate advocacy of her measure were effectively to show up the Government's failing in that regard?
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that he is thinking precisely as I am—that the subject of my private Member's Bill, in the context of the concertinaed time scale afforded us, is a source of very real embarrassment to the Government; and so it should be. Undoubtedly when history looks back at the Government's choice of legislation which they could have passed in this Parliament with their very large majority, their failure to introduce legislation reforming adoption will be particularly regretted.
    I hope that I have the opportunity of a Second Reading for my Bill, as I shall use it to underline the point that the Government undertook to introduce such reform. Indeed, at last week's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister promised to introduce such reform. It will be very interesting to see what happens. I should add that the

    845
    Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, to which the Government have referred, has already been enacted. It would not, therefore, serve to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise.
    As a holder of one of the opportunities to promote private Member's legislation, I feel passionately about this debate. More time could have been allowed to consider private Members' Bills, and the Government could have chosen a better set of priorities. Those two factors would have made a substantial difference to the way in which I view restrictions on Back Benchers' opportunities to deal with very important matters.
    Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend been approached by representatives of the Government to say that they find her initiative very helpful and that they would like her to help draft the Bill, as it might get the Prime Minister off the hook? Or has there been absolutely no dialogue at all, and does the Prime Minister seem not to wish to honour that particular pledge?
    Mrs. Spelman: I am very sorry to tell my right hon. Friend that my overtures have been rebuffed. Perhaps we should not be entirely surprised about that. I have certainly written twice to the Minister, reiterating our offer and making it clear that my opportunity to promote a private Member's Bill could be a vehicle for the Government's own draft Bill. We know that a draft Bill already exists. I have asked for a copy of it, but I have not been afforded one. After the Prime Minister's response at Prime Minister's questions last week, we probed the Government on the issue, but there has been no clarification of what legislation he plans to introduce in this Session, as he has promised to do.
    Mr. Hogg: Is my hon. Friend saying that she has given the Government the opportunity to use her Bill to implement their own stated commitments? If that is so, can she explain why they have not taken advantage of the offer?
    Mrs. Spelman: I note the tone of incredulity in my right hon. and learned Friend's voice. However, incredulous though he may be, the situation that I have described is absolutely true. My only conclusion on why the Government have so churlishly rejected my offer is that they are too proud to accept it.
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will know that, last Thursday, when I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the Prime Minster's pledge on adoption legislation in this Session, she indicated that, in relation to adoption, private Member's Bills and the time available to consider them were very important. However, after hearing my hon. Friend's comments, I am totally confused about the matter. At last Thursday's business questions, my very clear understanding was that the Prime Minister's pledge would be honoured using private Members' Bills.
    Mrs. Spelman: I confess that I am similarly confused, for there has been no clarification the matter. Are we to take the Prime Minister at his word? So far it has not been retracted—unless such an occasion arises tomorrow, when I shall seek to catch the Speaker's eye so that I can probe the Prime Minister on the offer that he made last week. Perhaps we shall all be much clearer after Prime Minister's questions tomorrow.
    846
    Given his pledge last week, it seems perfectly legitimate to ask the Prime Minister to introduce legislation this Session to reform adoption law, and to ask him for which reforms he plans to use primary legislation. It seems legitimate also to ask him to clarify for the public that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 is done and dusted. Interestingly enough, that legislation started as a private Member's Bill. It has been enacted and now requires only to be implemented. That is all that delays the introduction of those provisions.
    In reply to the perfectly valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I can only say that the whole House is confused on the issue. My Bill is sponsored by members of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption, which is an entirely cross-party group of hon. Members. They support the initiative to try to enable the Government to introduce reform of adoption law because reform is so obviously needed, as has been highlighted by the recent cases of the internet adoption babies. However, the all-party group is similarly confused by the current situation.
    Mr. Bercow: I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend, but I should like to pay her a compliment. She has just vouchsafed to the House an assurance regarding her willingness to sacrifice her Bill to the Government because she is concerned about the issue at stake and about achieving urgent progress on it. That is an example of heroism, selflessness and statesmanship of which I have known no equal from any hon. Member during the past four years. Does not it demonstrate the Government's base ingratitude that they are not prepared to respond in a similar spirit?
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that compliment. I have learned to take all compliments made in the House with a pinch of salt, but he has a valid point. There is a distinct arrogance in a Government who assume comfortably that they will win the next election and that they can afford to wait for their victory before they introduce legislation. Indeed, they count on that victory just as one counts the eggs in a basket, and it is that arrogance that has caused their current embarrassment. Their sheer complacency allowed the issues involved in the internet adoption case, which caused all of us such disgust and horror, to arise. The case arose in the absence of reform and implementation of legislation that has already been agreed to—something that has shown the Government to be more than a little wanting.
    6.31 pm
    Mr. Tipping: A number of hon. Members, many of them Opposition Members, made it clear that they wanted this debate. I agreed with them, and I believe that this has been an interesting and important discussion. It was perhaps short, but it has been taken in prime time, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) recognised.
    The debate has reflected hon. Members' different views of private Members' Bills. We have heard of hon. Members—I shall not name them—who are alleged to be stranglers of such Bills. The right hon. Member for

    847
    Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made it clear that he has little regard for private Members' Bills, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and Hykeham—
    Mr. Bercow: North Hykeham.
    Mr. Tipping: I refer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), whose constituency I hope to visit during the election campaign, whenever it comes. [Interruption.] Indeed, I have been in Lincolnshire today, but rather than being dragged kicking to the Chamber, I have rushed and sweated to get here for this important debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that private Members' legislation gave Back Benchers an opportunity to raise important issues. We saw an example of that tonight, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) advocated his outworkers measure, which will help to deal with scams such as the receipt of money in advance for bogus schemes.
    The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke at length about the need for adoption legislation, on which I agree. That is why the Government produced the White Paper. That document and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that adoption legislation will be introduced during the current year. As the hon. Lady pointed out, my right hon. Friend said last week that legislation would be introduced during this Session. I hope that we can work together on a consensual basis to make changes that are of paramount importance—a phrase that is used in the relevant law—for the children themselves. However, she also made one or two party political points. I chide her gently; the previous Conservative Government, whom she supported, also published a White Paper on adoption. After that, however, it took them three years to produce a Bill that was never enacted.
    I offer the hand of partnership, as adoption is an extremely important issue. The hon. Lady has heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have said, and has seen the White Paper. We will introduce legislation.
    Mr. Redwood: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the Prime Minister's extraordinary promise will be fulfilled? Is he saying that the Government now regret spurning the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that her Bill might be used—of course, if they wanted to take that option, they would have to allow more time for private Members' debates such as this one—or that they will introduce a Bill about which we have not yet been advised? They would have to be very quick to introduce a Bill before the election, so how will they honour their promise? I do not believe that it will be honoured.
    Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is keen to pursue the date of the general election. He has emerged from the darkness of the Back Benches and into the light, but I fear that the Opposition Members' desire to try to name the day reflects an anxiety to get out of the light and back into that darkness.
    Let me stay in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sixth Friday is allocated to the hon. Member for Meriden. I envisage that any proposed adoption legislation will be
    848
    comprehensive. Traditionally, private Members' Bills have stuck to one or two subjects, but I have no doubt that the sort of issues that the hon. Lady wants to pursue will be dealt with in any Government Bill. I am at a disadvantage, as I have not yet had the opportunity to see her Bill; indeed, I understand that it has not yet been published.
    Mrs. Spelman: On comprehensiveness, will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the Protection of Children Bill 1999 was a comprehensive, pertinent and important measure that was enacted through precisely the sort of vehicle with which I am trying to change the law?
    Mr. Tipping: The advice from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)—it is valuable to have the Minister of State with responsibility for these matters beside me—is that the Bill to which the hon. Lady referred had 20 clauses. We envisage that the Government Bill will have far more clauses and that it will be comprehensive. I am not saying that it is her driving motivation to seek to gain party political advantage of these issues, but it must be borne in mind that they are important and are paramount to children's interests. She has heard what the Government have said; we will introduce the legislation.
    Mr. Hogg: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me for issuing a warning to him. I have now been in the House for 20 years, so I know that when we come to a general election, the Government of the day seek to pop through all their outstanding legislation in the hope that it will go through on the nod. I point out to him that a number of my hon. Friends and I do not intend to let that happen. We intend only those Bills that are right and with which we agree to be popped through.
    Mr. Tipping: Well, I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and I am not surprised by his view. He and his Conservative colleagues resemble turkeys waiting for Christmas. I look forward to the general election, whenever it comes. When it arrives, we will have to have the discussions to which he refers. I am not sanguine about the idea that the Bill will be popped through, as he charmingly put it.
    Mr. Bercow: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?
    Mr. Tipping: I shall give way once more, after which I must make some progress.
    Mr. Bercow: The Parliamentary Secretary's mellifluous tone is as apparent as ever. I am bound to say, however, that his stance is rather rum. He appears to disapprove of the measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), but how can he do so when, by his own admission, he has not yet seen it? Is not it a trifle cheeky of him to speak portentously about the comprehensive Bill that the Government intend to introduce on the matter, when he is as yet in no position to judge—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that hon. Members are getting into a great deal of detail on a particular Bill, rather than the motion under discussion.
    Mr. Tipping: I shall keep within your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and simply say that any adoption measure that is considered on the sixth Friday that is allocated in the motion will not be as comprehensive as the Bill that the Government will introduce. The advantage of being in government is that one has a hand in and sight of proposed legislation.
    Mr. Hogg: It is in the Parliamentary Secretary's back pocket.
    Mr. Tipping: I have no Bill in my back pocket, but the White Paper on adoption has been produced—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to make me say that an Adoption Bill is extant. We have published a White Paper and held a consultation. We are in the process of producing a Bill, which will be introduced in the current Session, as the Prime Minister said.
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) sagely and rightly said that there was nothing unusual about 2 February because the timetable is determined by the Queen's Speech. Several hon. Members have argued that we should have brought forward the first date for considering private Members' Bills. That is not possible because of the rules of the House.
    Mr. Bercow: Which rules?
    Mr. Tipping: Standing Orders. Several hon. Members have said that we will not have enough time to discuss the private Members' Bills. They may know the date of the general election; they may be planning their campaign, but the Government have a good deal of business to tackle. We have set out our task, and we are determined to achieve more. A great deal has been achieved, but much more remains to be done. I look forward to doing that in the remainder of this Parliament and with a Labour Government in the next Parliament.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.

  Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921
  6.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move,
  That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, for inquiring into a matter of definite public importance, that is to say, the matters arising from the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman, with the following terms of reference—

  (a) after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, to consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities;

  (b) to enquire into the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations which followed the deaths of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances;

  (c) by reference to the case of Harold Shipman to enquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs; and

  (d) following those enquiries, to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to protect patients in the future, and to report its findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Secretary of State for Health.

  Harold Shipman, who practised as a GP in Hyde, Greater Manchester, was found guilty on 31 January last year at Preston Crown court of 15 charges of murder, and one of forging the will of one of his patients. The clinical audit of Shipman's practice, which was published on 5 January, has revealed that he may be responsible for many more deaths.
  Shipman's victims placed their trust in him as their local GP. He abused his position of trust callously and determinedly. It is beyond belief that a doctor could act in that way. Shipman was a cold, calculated, evil killer. His crimes have shocked the country and caused enormous grief and suffering to hundreds of people. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of GPs in this country do a brilliant job for their patients. We must not allow Shipman's crimes to threaten the essential relationship between doctors and their patients.
  From the outset, we wanted to make sure we learned the lessons of the case as quickly and effectively as possible so that we could take all the necessary measures to protect patients. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 February last year that an inquiry was to be set up under the National Health Service Act 1977. It was to have taken evidence in private, but would have published its conclusions and recommendations in full.
  The decision to take evidence in private was, as the House knows, successfully challenged through a judicial review brought by families of the victims and by sections of the media. They wished the inquiry to be held in public. In upholding the request for a judicial review, the court asked my right hon. Friend to review his original decision. Consequently, we decided that the new inquiry should be held in public, and we consulted the families about the form it should take. The strong view of the victims' families was that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 provided for the most suitable form of public inquiry.

  851
  On 21 September, my right hon. Friend announced that there would be a public inquiry under the 1921 Act into the issues surrounding the crimes committed by Harold Shipman. The tribunal will be wide ranging and cover different responsibilities, including those that fall outside the health service's remit. Tribunals under the 1921 Act generally hold all or most of their meetings in public and have all the powers of the High Court in respect of calling witnesses and the production of documents. They may take evidence on oath and they provide absolute privilege in respect of defamation.
  The inquiry will be comprehensive and inclusive. It will enable the victims' relatives in particular to play their full part in the inquiry.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister referred to the victims' families, who are very important. Is it intended to grant the families the opportunity to be legally represented so that they can participate in the inquiry and ask questions through their counsel in the cross-examination of relevant witnesses?
  Mr. Hutton: I understand that the chairman of the tribunal has ultimate responsibility for determining such matters. However, it is the usual practice in inquiries under the 1921 Act for witnesses to be legally represented. [Interruption.] I understand that the question arises in relation to people who wish to give evidence before the tribunal.
  Mr. Hogg: Of course that is partly correct. However, will members of families who have a genuine interest in the outcome of the inquiry because their relatives may have been killed by Dr. Shipman, but who do not have evidence to give, have an opportunity to instruct counsel so they can ask relevant questions of witnesses?
  Mr. Hutton: I cannot add much more to the answer that I attempted to give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister write to me?
  Mr. Hutton: I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with more details if he would find that helpful. However, the question is whether those people wish to give evidence before the tribunal. If so, their entitlement to legal representation is essentially a matter for the chairman of the tribunal. As I said earlier, it is the usual practice in such inquiries for such legal representation to be permitted.
  Mr. David Winnick: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can assist me. I accept that it is not within his brief, but it has been reported in the press that Shipman was responsible for many other murders. That is being investigated. Would setting up the tribunal preclude charging Shipman with those murders? I appreciate that he has already received a life sentence. That is an important question, not least for the victims of that terrible man's crimes.
  Mr. Hutton: No, setting up an inquiry will not preclude taking criminal action. Following the publication
  852
  of Professor Baker's review of the clinical audit of Dr. Shipman's practice, Greater Manchester police have established a new incident room at Ashton-under-Lyne police station. They are conducting further inquiries and examining the evidence that might support any further prosecutions. As my hon. Friend knows, any decision to bring such a prosecution is ultimately the responsibility of the appropriate prosecuting authority—in this case, the Crown Prosecution Service.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Director of Public Prosecutions has already said that there will be no prosecution in respect of the second batch because of the question of getting a fair trial? It seems logical that the DPP will reach the same conclusion about the 64 cases that Manchester police are now investigating.
  Mr. Hutton: Hon. Members will understand that I do not want to pre-empt such decisions. There are on-going inquiries, for which the police are responsible, into the suspicious deaths of some of Dr. Shipman's patients. It would not be sensible to try to second-guess the decisions of appropriate prosecuting authorities.
  Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of information, will the Minister tell us how far back the audit of Dr. Shipman's records goes?
  Mr. Hutton: I understand that Professor Baker's review considered all the evidence from Dr. Shipman's practice from the beginning of his time as a GP. I believe that the clinical audit covers 20 years.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the terms of reference and the chairman of the inquiry on 3 January. Subject to the House's agreement and that of another place, the terms of reference for the inquiry have been set out in the motion. First, after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, the inquiry will consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities.
  Secondly, the inquiry will examine the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations that followed the deaths of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances. Thirdly, by reference to the case of Harold Shipman, it will inquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs.
  Finally, following those investigations, the inquiry will recommend what, if any, steps should be taken to protect patients in future, and report to the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Health.
  The inquiry will be chaired by Dame Janet Smith, who has been a High Court judge since 1992. She was presiding judge of the north-eastern circuit between 1995 and 1998, and a judge of the employment appeals tribunal since 1994. She is extremely well qualified for the job.
  I would like to acknowledge the strong contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in getting an inquiry set up into these terrible crimes. He has been in regular contact with

  853
  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about the case and has, in particular, been tireless in his support for the relatives of the many victims of Harold Shipman. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend cannot be here tonight as he is recovering from an illness that he developed at Christmas.
  The House will know that the Government and the medical profession are already taking action to modernise regulatory structures and to deal with poor performance wherever it occurs. During the summer, we consulted fully on proposals that included regulating deputy and assistant doctors through health authority supplementary lists and regulating doctors within personal medical services by means of a separate list system. Those proposals also included requiring all doctors in general practice to declare any criminal convictions and any adverse General Medical Council findings. That work forms the basis of the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill now before Parliament.
  By setting up primary care groups and primary care trusts, which provide more locally focused management structures for general practice, we have restricted the opportunities for doctors to act inappropriately. In addition, the Health and Social Care Bill will introduce important new powers to strengthen the links between GPs, health authorities and primary care trusts. Underpinning those provisions will be greater information sharing, to support appraisal and mandatory clinical audit.
  Personal medical services contracts agreed for the third-wave pilots from April 2001 will require doctors to participate in at least three clinical audit programmes each year, and to allow 30 hours for continued professional development per year per doctor. My officials in the Department of Health are in discussion with the British Medical Association about how to apply the same standards to all general practitioners.
  From April this year, all GPs will be required to participate in annual appraisal. The purpose of the appraisal will be developmental, but it will also identify poor performance wherever it exists. That is important in order to protect patients. In August last year, we took powers to allow the GMC to impose interim suspensions on doctors when necessary, including in conduct, health and performance cases. Additionally, the minimum period of erasure from the medical register is now five years, ensuring that when a doctor is struck off, he should not expect to return except in the most exceptional circumstances. The GMC must also notify a doctor's employer if it is considering his fitness to practise.
  In November, we took the necessary legal powers to set up the National Clinical Assessment Authority. The authority will become operational in the first half of this year and is at the centre of the Government's co-ordinated approach to better protection for patients and better support for doctors. It will provide a central point of contact for the NHS when concerns arise about a doctor's performance.
  NHS employers and health authorities will be able to refer a doctor to the NCAA if concerns about his or her performance cannot be resolved locally. The authority will carry out rapid objective assessments and make recommendations to NHS hospitals and health authorities so that they can take appropriate action. That could involve further training, support, or, if problems were intractable, dismissal or referral to the GMC.
  854
  The Home Secretary is overseeing a review of the procedures involved in the certification of deaths and the authorisation of burials and cremation. The Office for National Statistics, the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly are all involved in this work. The results of the review will be fed into the inquiry.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may be interested to know that the location of the inquiry will be in central Manchester. We have secured newly refurbished offices next to Piccadilly railway station for the use of the chair and secretariat, and Manchester town hall will be used for the witness hearings. The inquiry will also set up a closed circuit television link to Hyde town hall, so that the witness hearings can be televised there on large TV monitors. That should enable the people of Hyde to keep in touch with the proceedings, should they wish to do so, without having to travel into central Manchester.
  We owe it to the families and friends of those murdered by Harold Shipman to implement whatever steps are necessary to prevent a repetition of such terrible crimes. Shipman broke the trust of his patients in the most appalling way. However, he should not be allowed to break the trust that exists between family doctors and their patients. The measures that I have described today are intended to strengthen that bond of trust. They express the Government's determination to apply the lessons of the Shipman case to ensure that patients in future have the full and proper protection that they deserve.
  6.55 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House and for giving his comments. However, as the Secretary of State gave the original statement to the House, and as it was his decision that resulted in the High Court review and the U-turn by the Government, it would have been only proper for him to come to the House himself to give the explanation of subsequent events. I say that with no disrespect to the Minister.
  Even after a lapse of time, the immense wickedness of Harold Shipman is still hard to imagine. The tabloid terms that we have seen so often, such as "multiple killer" and "serial killer", still understate the full horror of what has happened. The way in which Harold Shipman abused his professional trust and the bond that he had with his patients is particularly vile and difficult to understand. That trust was given by patients who literally, and mistakenly, put their lives in his hands. The anguish of the relatives is difficult for any hon. Members to imagine. As a doctor, I cannot conceive of a bond built on trust being abused in such an unspeakable manner.
  We must also remember, however, that it was Harold Shipman who was found guilty, and not the medical profession. I am grateful for the tone of the Minister's comments because, in cases of this kind, the specific is extrapolated to the general far too often. We must remember that the vast majority of our doctors are dedicated and hard-working, and we need to protect their reputation when considering any aspects of the case relating to Harold Shipman. All we ask is that all possible measures be put in place to prevent such a case from happening again.
  The Minister detailed the terms of reference for the inquiry. The extent of the crimes is, as he said, still in doubt. It is unknown exactly how many victims of this

  855
  man there were, or over how long a period the crimes took place. I imagine that that will be extremely difficult to ascertain from the medical records, and that much work will need to be done. That process will be very time consuming, and any chance of a short inquiry will, therefore, be remote.
  There will be much supposition and doubt about Harold Shipman's previous clinical practice, which is why there is a need for full disclosure in the case, not only to maintain public confidence but to give all due comfort to the relatives of his victims. Questions as to who might have known what was going on or who might have been able to stop the events early before more patients became victims will be crucial for the inquiry.
  The inquiry must also examine the role that the statutory authorities should play, the role that they did play, and the role of any responsible individuals who should have known what to look for, or who may have seen but not wanted to know, the pattern that was emerging. We need to know what all this will mean for future practice. We need to know the implications of peer review and audit, not least in the case of single-handed practitioners. How will we ensure that those who practise on their own will be audited by their peers in a way that ensures that all the same safeguards are applied to them as are applied to those in group practices?
  I am sure that all hon. Members would acknowledge the sterling work carried out by the many single-handed doctors in this country, and we do not seek to denigrate what they do. However, we must ensure that, although they work individually on a contractual basis, they do not work in isolation on a clinical basis. That is one of the most important questions for the inquiry to consider.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to try to determine the extent of Dr. Shipman's crimes is to ascertain that from him? He has little reason not to make a full disclosure because he is not to be further prosecuted. Does my hon. Friend also agree that one way forward might be for the inquiry—and, indeed, the prosecution authorities—to give an undertaking that Shipman will not be further prosecuted and to try to get him, on the back of such an undertaking, to make full disclosure?
  Dr. Fox: We have already had the assurance that there will be no further prosecution should further evidence be found. Although I should like to think that such co-operation would be valid in the investigation, I must say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I would not necessarily regard someone who has murdered many of his patients as being of suitable character to be a witness. I would not want to place too much reliance on such a person, which is why we must hold an external inquiry—a full audit of all Shipman's records. All possible means must be used to try to ascertain the truth. Talking to Harold Shipman may be a useful pointer, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that we should in no way rely on that to get to the bottom of what may be an extraordinarily widespread and sordid series of events.
  We need to know how revalidation and the Government's annual appraisal proposals—and, indeed, subsequent reform of the General Medical Council—
  856
  might affect these and subsequent cases. Such issues must be considered not individually, but as part of a whole. We must ensure that action is taken quickly and decisively at all levels in respect of early warning, early action and firm final action, not only to deal comprehensively with such cases but to ensure that those who are not guilty are cleared as quickly as possible and able to continue their careers.
  Mr. Winnick: To return to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), if it emerged that Shipman was responsible for other deaths for which he had not been charged and convicted, how would those left behind feel? Shipman might have murdered their loved ones, but no action would be taken in court. Surely they would feel that the person in question had got away with such crimes. There is a point at issue here; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address it.
  Dr. Fox: I sympathise with that point, but it has already been made clear by the relevant authorities that there will be no further prosecutions. That is a matter not for the House but for the independent prosecuting authorities, although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's reflection of how the relatives would feel.
  We must work out how the Government's proposed National Clinical Assessment Authority would affect subsequent cases. Indeed, there has been confusion over statements from Downing street and the Department of Health as to whether the NCAA would guard against such cases. My view is that the Minister put the case rather better than No. 10 that such a measure would not have stopped a Harold Shipman-type case. It is being put in place to ensure that those who practise incompetently rather than criminally are discovered more quickly. The Opposition welcome supplementary lists, which are long overdue, as they will bring the regulation of part-timers and locums into line with that which full-time doctors must undergo.
  As for the impact on primary care as set out in the terms of reference, there is an interesting point in respect of the disclosure of previous offences. Of course it must be right that people should have to disclose their disciplinary conduct record, but it must also be sensible to include a double lock under which an employing authority has a duty to check the disciplinary background of anyone it was to take into its employ to ensure that there was no blemish. Simply asking for self-disclosure from those with a disciplinary blemish on their record is not sufficient and the public will want a stronger mechanism. We must also ensure that should such a mechanism be put in place, we have sufficient law to police it as that would greatly underpin public confidence in such cases.
  We must consider how controlled drugs are used and, in particular, what happens when patients die with controlled drugs in their homes. How should such drugs be disposed of and what are the rights and duties of doctors? All those points require clarification and I hope that the inquiry will consider them in detail. Many of us with experience of such matters well understand the problems that doctors face and the pressures on relatives in terms of removing medicines and clearing up a house. That can cause great distress, so the clearer the regulations, the better the situation is likely to be for all involved.

  857
  We look forward to the inquiry closely considering the coroners service. Many questions have been raised about its role in the Shipman case. Why was the pattern missed if it was so widespread and occurred over such a long period? What record-keeping mechanism would expose such a pattern? What review mechanisms were in place? What new review mechanisms are needed? Is the coroners service suitably regulated? If so, how is it to be policed? All those are important questions, but perhaps something even more important needs to be done.
  A general practitioner who is not the doctor of the patient in question is called to sign part 2 of a cremation certificate for a colleague. The patient's own doctor cannot sign. I know from experience that certificates can often be signed in haste, perhaps to help relatives at a distressing time or to expedite funeral arrangements. The chances of missing a pattern increase when signing such certificates is spread among a number of doctors, so there must be a strong argument for a single person in a district to have the job of signing part 2.
  If one person had the specific job, of checking medical records and signing part 2, it would become evident to that individual if a pattern was emerging among doctors in the area, and the pattern would be easier to detect. Whatever the results of the inquiry, I hope that the Government will consider such a legislative move, which represents a simple way of putting in place a safeguard that does not currently exist. Although it is all too easy for such patterns to be missed for many of the right reasons, they can also be missed for many of the wrong reasons.
  We welcome a public inquiry. The scale of the crimes makes holding an inquiry in private unthinkable, and I know that that is the view of the relatives of the Shipman victims. The Secretary of State initially said:
  The report of the inquiry will be made public.—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 908.]
  That was clearly not enough. The families and relatives of the victims must be able to raise the issues that are important to them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in his interventions.
  Setting up large television screens is a long way from the Government's original plans. The families of the Shipman victims, a substantial element of our national newspapers and the national media and I gave written evidence, forcing the Government into a U-turn. There will be a public inquiry, but that is not what the Government wanted. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but, in all justice, the Secretary of State should have had the courage to come to the House to explain why he did not want a public inquiry and why the High Court forced him into this action. Through the House, he should give an explanation to the relatives of the victims of Harold Shipman.
  7.9 pm
  Ms Chris McCafferty: At the risk of sounding patronising, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having the wisdom and the stature to recognise that his original decision was not correct. As someone who has campaigned to ensure that Harold Shipman's time as a general practitioner in Todmorden in my constituency of Calder Valley is considered as part of any inquiry or investigation, I have always been open
  858
  about my view that the only way to establish the truth is to hold a full, open public inquiry considering all the aspects of the Shipman case. We owe it to the many unknown and suspected victims of Shipman, and their families, to do all we can to ensure that we uncover the truth about his activities, and to establish safeguards to ensure that such things never happen again.
  Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that time scales and procedures governing submissions of evidence are widely publicised in Todmorden, where suspicious deaths are being investigated by West Yorkshire police? My constituents are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for ensuring that Todmorden was included in Professor Baker's clinical audit, for looking carefully at the professor's conclusions about Shipman's activities during his time as a GP in Todmorden, and for being mature enough to change his mind and propose a full and open public inquiry.
  I welcome the motion, and hope that all Members will support it.
  7.11 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: Being a doctor can be an extremely lonely occupation at times. Medicine is not clear-cut; there are many grey areas. It is not surprising that some doctors, especially those in single-handed general practice—and, indeed, single-specialty hospital doctors—can find it extraordinarily difficult. It is well known that many doctors in such circumstances tend to move in two directions: they lose their confidence and take to alcohol or drugs; or they think they are infallible and start to behave strangely.
  Shipman did not just behave strangely; he behaved wickedly, and quite exceptionally. I certainly hope that it is exceptional for someone to be as murderous as that. I also hope, however, that the inquiry will consider some of the wider issues that may cause people to behave as Shipman behaved, and to take account of some of the risks carried by all of us when we fail to support professionals whom we imbue with a great deal of responsibility.
  Dr. Fox: Just so that the hon. Gentleman is not misinterpreted, let me say this. I hope he is not suggesting in any way that the pressures of any practice would cause people to murder their patients when he says that we must consider the causes. In my view, there are no "causes" when someone cold-bloodedly murders his own patients.
  Dr. Brand: I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to clarify my view. As I have said earlier, Shipman dealt with his sense of infallibility—or, perhaps, insecurity; we do not know what motivated him—in a uniquely wicked, murderous way.
  I hope that the inquiry will, in a sense, be in two parts: one part considering Shipman and how he managed to get away with his wicked and evil deeds; and the other considering the support and regulatory mechanisms that we need in order to assure the general public that the privileged relationship between doctor and patient is not abused, albeit in a lesser way, by other practitioners. Shipman is unique, but I do not believe that he is the only medical practitioner—or nurse, or indeed vicar—who, having found that he is professionally isolated, has started to behave oddly.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Notwithstanding his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), is not the hon. Gentleman just a little concerned that his remarks may be seen as making an excuse for what has occurred? Does he not fear that the families of the 300 people who have been murdered might misunderstand what the hon. Gentleman—who is a respected doctor—is telling the House?
  Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman ascribes to me a motivation that does not relate to what I said. There is no excuse for a Shipman: that was unique wickedness, on an enormous scale. The point I am trying to make is that the circumstances in which Shipman practised allowed him to put himself in a position in which he could commit multiple despicable murders. I suspect that if Shipman had been a member of a support group involving other GPs—a Balint group, a royal college group or a BMA group—and had discussed his cases, it would have become clear at an early stage that he was a very odd man with very odd values. That is one of the ways in which professional peer review works.
  I welcome the Government's move towards clinical governance and audit and examination of professional practice, but that in itself will not pick up uniquely murderous wicked people. This returns me to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It will pick up the incompetent—but if we encourage people working in isolation to be part of a structure in which they share experiences, it may well be possible for it to pick up totally aberrant behaviour.
  I do not want to be mistaken for one who thinks that the country is full of doctors who behave in the same way as Shipman. I think, however, that we are short of mechanisms to audit, and also to protect the community at large. I feel that, notwithstanding some of the Government's welcome measures, we have a great deal further to go.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) mentioned the discredited "ash cash" arrangement, whereby, basically, a doctor countersigns the reputation of a colleague without actually doing much in the way of work. It happens day in, day out. The fact that the coroner does not necessarily liaise with the registrar for births, marriages and deaths is nonsensical. Most cremations go through the registrar, and the coroner deals only with what is abnormal, suspicious or uncertain. It would obviously make sense if a single organisation dealt with all deaths: that would enable suspicious or uncertain deaths to be fed through the system to establish whether patterns emerged.
  We must view the matter not just within tight local-authority boundaries. After all, not just the constituents of the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) were affected; my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has constituents who have been bereaved through Shipman's wicked actions. The technology is, I believe, available to enable us to link information so that we see abhorrent patterns of behaviour.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman says that closer liaisons could take place at the end of life to check that the number of deaths were not caused by, for instance, murder. As a practising doctor, can he tell me why Dr. Shipman was able to obtain so many prescriptions for diamorphine? Why was that never
  860
  picked up throughout his practice, given the number of times we have been told that doctors must not over-prescribe, that their prescribing is checked, that there are limited lists, and so forth? In fact, there seemed to be no brake on the prescribing pattern of this particular GP.
  Dr. Brand: I shall touch on that, but I wish to return to the point that I was making. Patterns of deaths are important, not only within general practice but within hospital practice. It is helpful for people who audit these issues to look at death patterns in long-stay wards or wards specialising in the care of elderly people to see whether a pattern emerges. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) about some of the practices involving long-stay beds or the way in which some older people are treated, or not treated, in hospital. We should see whether we can pick up and learn from the patterns.
  Many issues were hinted at in the early reports into the Shipman affair. The issuing of prescriptions to Shipman for controlled drugs was quite astonishing. Industrial quantities of diamorphine were dispensed for no good clinical reason. I am not sure what the drugs inspectorate or the policeman who is supposed to be in charge of drug registers was doing; someone comes to see us every year—or every two, three or four years, depending on how busy they are—to see what we are doing with the drugs we buy. Likewise, pharmacies should be inspected to see what is happening with their dangerous drugs registers.
  Clearly, this case should have been picked up. Shipman was stupid; we keep hearing what a clever man he was, but he got vast quantities of drugs from a small number of pharmacies. It is extraordinary that that was not picked up. It is extraordinary also that the clever pharmacist who tried to blow the whistle was not listened to by the coroner because the coroner did not feel that it was his responsibility.
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem was not with the prescription, but with the hoarding of heroin from dead patients, and that the disposal of controlled drugs should be a central element of the inquiry?
  Dr. Brand: There were two problems: first, inappropriate quantities were given to Dr. Shipman; and, secondly, he neither destroyed the drugs—the proper thing to do—nor entered them in his own drug register as having been received. It is essential that drugs are trackable between the manufacturer and the patient. In this case, the system clearly failed.
  I am sure that many issues will come out in the inquiry, which will be handled sensitively. We owe that to the large number of patients and relatives who were affected. However, I hope that in the broad remit that has been given to the inquiry, time will be taken not only to look at how we avoid a Shipman, but at the wider issues. We should look at how the statutory authorities can work together to avoid similar, if not as disastrous, occurrences of repeated incompetence and inappropriate behaviour that may well be dangerous. These patterns can be picked up and I hope that the inquiry will involve a wide range of organisations.
  It is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the GMC and the employing authority. It is a matter for the different nations of the United Kingdom and for the

  861
  international scene. There are lots of little strands floating around, following the reports on Neale, Leadbetter and other poor practitioners who got away with it for far too long. I hope that the inquiry will draw all of that together and that we will have an opportunity to discuss the recommendations in this House.
  7.24 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad that the Secretary of State has decided, on further reflection, to order a full public inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries (Evidence) Act. I am sure that that is the right decision. I am sure also that there will be great confidence in Dame Janet Smith, the High Court judge chosen to conduct the inquiry. She is highly respected and has a great deal of relevant experience.
  When the Secretary of State came to the House earlier about the Shipman case, I was worried that the General Medical Council seemed to be being made something of a whipping boy. Although the GMC is undergoing changes, I find it difficult to appreciate how it would necessarily have been expected to spot a Shipman. The behaviour of Harold Shipman was extraordinary and far outside what, happily, we have expected during our lives. It was so utterly inconsistent with what we rightly expect, and get, from GPs that the ordinary disciplinary controls of the GMC would not have been appropriate. That is one of the issues that Dame Janet will consider. I should be surprised if the GMC—under almost any structure—would necessarily have found and stopped Harold Shipman. I should be interested to see what opinion the judge comes to on that.
  I endorse what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) have said: Dr. Shipman was found guilty of these terrible multiple murders, not the medical profession. GPs generally provide an excellent service to the public and are having to do so under enormous pressure. I do not blame the present Government any more than previous Governments, but we know that greater numbers of hospital doctors and GPs are needed. We know that doctors work under great pressure and it is important that Governments of all Complexions give them proper support.
  The Minister referred to the NCAA. Although appraisal and audit may have some relevance to identifying a future Shipman, I would not want it to be thought that that was the NCAA's primary purpose. It is important that, while we should monitor GPs more closely than we have in the past, the monitoring should not become excessively burdensome. It should be constructive and designed, like most professional programmes these days, to enhance standards, rather than be overt policing of the activities of those concerned. The monitoring certainly should pick up aberrant behaviour and the personal appraisals should provide opportunities to spot possible danger, but they should always be constructive.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer to what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said about how Dr. Harold Shipman was able to obtain such large quantities of diamorphine and to retain in storage such large amounts of the drug? My right hon. and learned Friend said, rightly, that Dr. Harold Shipman, not the medical profession, is to
  862
  blame. However, the system is clearly to blame for allowing this man to store and use such huge quantities of that drug without question.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I was just coming to that portion of my short speech.
  Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a mechanism such as the NCAA is likely to pick up poorly performing doctors or those whose skills need to be upgraded, but that someone who purposefully kills his patients and hides the evidence is hardly likely to be picked up by such an audit?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes, I agree entirely. I have not studied the Shipman case more than any other careful reader of the newspapers, but it comes through that Dr. Shipman presented himself to the world as a skilled and caring general practitioner, and I suspect that he might well have been able to bamboozle the NCAA, get quite a good chit—a high mark—as a GP, and keep his criminal misdeeds hidden.
  The inquiry will want to question a range of authorities. The authorities responsible for the issuing, management and control of dangerous and lethal drugs such as diamorphine will be high on the list. The inquiry will examine the role of the employing authority in the case, and that of NHS management generally. It will consider the role of primary care groups under the new dispensations. It will certainly investigate the role of the coroner and the relevance of the register of deaths. It will look into the role of the police to some extent, although I am not suggesting that it would have been easy or even possible for the police to have discovered anything in advance.
  Those authorities are all intended to work together, and we would hope that they could pick up such aberrant behaviour rather earlier. I do not know how long Dr. Shipman had been murdering people—nobody does—but it seems to have been many years. We need to end up with systems that, while not blocking the good work of medical practitioners, give a greater opportunity for the misuse of drugs, and for serial killing, to be brought to light comparatively early.
  I am concerned about the length of inquiries. The Scott inquiry was deliberately not conducted under the 1921 Act, on the basis that that might cause it to become overlong. After it had lasted for three and a half years, people—perhaps including Lord Justice Scott—may have felt that that might not have been as much of a problem as had been feared.
  We have recently had, or are having, three immensely long inquiries: the Scott inquiry; the very skilful BSE inquiry under Lord Phillips; and, currently, the careful and difficult, but none the less immensely long, Bloody Sunday inquiry. I very much hope that the Shipman inquiry chairman does not think—I am sure that she will not—that great length is a necessary feature of all public inquiries. Obviously, the inquiry must have a full opportunity to consider carefully what has gone on, but if public confidence in public inquiries is to be fully restored, it is to be hoped that it will be able to proceed at a reasonable pace, to report in a not overlengthy amount of time and, above all, to provide a report of reasonable length, so that ordinary members of the public and the press can read a decent summary.

  863
  I suggest that the report should not be over 150 pages long, with extra matter in appendices, so that the results do not moulder on shelves but are understood by the country at large and acted on by those who are responsible for trying to put things right.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who made several points that I had intended to make.
  I have some experience of these matters, in that I represented Grantham when Beverley Allitt was working at Grantham hospital and killed several young patients there. Understandably, that caused immense distress in Grantham and triggered the same kind of anxiety that we see in the Shipman case.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to hold a public inquiry. That was greatly desired by the families affected by the Beverley Allitt killings, and I regret that it did not take place, although I understood the reasons. In such grave cases, a public inquiry is absolutely essential. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State changed his original decision.
  I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend's points about having a relatively brief inquiry. He and I were both involved in the Scott inquiry, and I was involved yet more in the BSE inquiry. Both those inquiries were immensely long. With all respect to those who presided over them, I do not think that the length of the inquiries, or indeed the reports, added greatly to our knowledge. We need a sharply focused inquiry that is as brief as we can make it.
  My right hon. and learned Friend made an important point about the nature of the ultimate report. It must be readable by the ordinary citizen. I do not know Dame Janet Smith, but I know that she is held in high respect on the north-eastern circuit and elsewhere, and I am sure that she will bear these points in mind.
  Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the efficiency and speed of the inquiry must be balanced against the wishes of the relatives, who must at all times be assured that all matters have been appropriately considered, given the scope of the crimes involved?
  Mr. Hogg: Indeed. There will be families of victims, or of possible victims, who do not want to give evidence, because they have none in the technical sense to give, but who none the less may feel that their relatives were murdered. It is desirable for the families to be represented at the hearings, so that, through their representatives, they can ask questions of witnesses, allowing avenues of concern to the families to be explored, even if they do not immediately occur to counsel for other parties. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider making public funds available for that representation.
  I strongly hope—I believe that this will happen—that those whose competence and performance are likely to be called into question will also be represented and have the opportunity to ask questions. Many people's professional
  864
  reputation will be on the line. The report may be highly critical of individuals, and it is proper for those individuals to have their interests properly safeguarded.
  My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about the difficulties in spotting crimes of this kind. Such crimes are so exceptional that they do not immediately occur to anyone who is investigating deaths occurring either in GPs' surgeries or in hospitals. One of the problems with the Beverley Allitt case was that it did not occur to people early enough that a nurse could be doing such things. It is understandable that such a thought did not occur. Similarly, it would not occur to most ordinary people—including coroners—that a GP could be murdering his or her patients. Therefore, one should be slow to criticise those who did not early on in that series of events think of murder.
  It is important that we try to establish systems that throw up abnormal patterns of conduct or of fatality, so that those who take an overarching view—whether the coroner or those who sign the part 2 certificates—can tell from data that have already been accumulated that something out of the ordinary is occurring. I hope that Dame Janet Smith will address that matter.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is entirely right to say that Dr. Shipman will not be prosecuted for any other offences. There are at least two reasons for that: first, because it has already been said on behalf of the prosecuting authority that he will not be prosecuted further, therefore he cannot be prosecuted; and, secondly, because the degree of the publicity that has been given to the cases means he could not get "a fair trial". I would strongly urge the prosecuting authorities not to attempt a further prosecution, which could certainly not go forward.
  However, there is a consequence that is worth considering. My considerable experience of criminals garnered from practising at the criminal Bar and defending many criminals suggests that, sometimes, there comes a time when they are willing to talk because they have nothing left to lose. It might be worth considering the possibility of intensively questioning Dr. Shipman again. He has nothing more to lose. He is one person who might be able to tell the relatives what happened, and one should not exclude the possibility that he might be willing to do so. He is a whole-life case—he will be in prison all his days; that is certain. Although he is clearly not a man on whose words one could place any weight, he might be able to illuminate some matters that are of interest and importance to the inquiry and the families.
  I anticipate many claims arising from the murders being made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Some of them may be fairly substantial, especially those involving the dependents of those who have been murdered, and some may be very large. I hope that officials at the Department of Health and the Home Office—I do not see a Home Office Minister present, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will draw my remarks to the attention of the Home Office—will consult the CICB on how best and most expeditiously to consider the claims that will emerge, which will be of considerable importance to individual dependents. I shall leave the Under-Secretary of State with that thought—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister of State"]. I apologise to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I did not intend to slight him.

  865
  To sum up, it is important that there is to be a public inquiry. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has changed his mind in that respect.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Hutton: First, I should like to express my appreciation to all those who have spoken in this short debate for having lent their support to the motion. I am sure that everyone shares my sense that it is the strong will of the House that the inquiry be established and allowed to get on with its work as soon as possible. The House will know that that is conditional on the other place approving a similar motion, but I am sure that that will happen soon, enabling the inquiry to start. I shall respond briefly to one of two of the points made in the debate.
  I shall certainly draw to the attention of the inquiry secretariat the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), especially those relating to access to the tribunal. The hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and others have expressed their concern about the use of controlled drugs by Dr. Shipman. I am sure that they are aware that that matter is specifically included in the terms of reference for the inquiry that we are establishing today. We expect Dame Janet Smith to give careful consideration to that aspect of the case, which has given rise to the concern voiced in the House tonight and elsewhere.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) expressed concern about the work of the NCAA. I assure him that it will not work as a police force. However, as many right hon. and hon. Members will know from their constituency work, when concerns have arisen in the past about questionable or poor performance by GPs, there has been a lack of clarity about where to take those concerns and who is responsible for dealing with them. We think that the NCAA will provide a useful focal point for dealing quickly and effectively with such concerns, which does not happen at present.
  On a point of information, concerns were expressed early on about the work of Dr. Shipman. One of the things we want the NCAA to do far more systematically than has been done in the past is put in place a proper set of procedures whereby such concerns can be addressed promptly and effectively and, if necessary, GPs can be provided with more effective support, which is an important part of the process. When serious concerns arise, we should act quickly and effectively, but that has not happened.
  Dr. Fox: Does the Minister agree that, regardless of the measures adopted, the more exceptional the case—to use the word of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—the less likely it is to be picked up by any authority, especially if the case involves, not incompetence, but wilful harm to
  866
  patients? Should we not be careful to avoid raising expectations that we can prevent another very wicked man from committing similar murders?
  Mr. Hutton: I agree in part. However, we think that the NCAA provides the best possible chance of our being able to intervene more effectively in such cases in future. That is what we want to achieve and we have been clear about setting out our objectives for the NCAA.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would that authority, had it been established, have been able to respond to relatives who after reading newspaper reports suspected that something had gone wrong with the treatment of a family member and were concerned, but did not know where to turn and, because they had such great respect for doctors, were inclined to think that they were only imagining a problem? Does the Minister think that ordinary patients and their relatives will be able to approach the new authority if they suspect that the care that they or their relatives are receiving is not as they would want it to be?
  Mr. Hutton: Yes, that is precisely what we think. We are also trying to establish other mechanisms to ensure that patients' voices are effectively heard at all levels of the national health service. That is what the independent statutory patients forums will allow us to achieve.
  I tried to deal with the concern expressed in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about legal representation in the tribunal. However, I shall write to him about that matter and draw his remarks about criminal injuries compensation claims to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office.
  We have had a short, but very useful debate. As I said, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. It is clear that the House strongly supports the motion and I am grateful for that support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, for inquiring into a matter of definite public importance, that is to say, the matters arising from the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman, with the following terms of reference—

  (a) after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, to consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities;

  (b) to enquire into the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations which followed the deaths of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances;

  (c) by reference to the case of Harold Shipman to enquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs; and

  (d) following those enquiries, to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to protect patients in the future, and to report its findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Secretary of State for Health.

  Local Government
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3272), dated 13th December 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.
  The regulations are but the latest episode in a long and tortuous process that has far more to do with saving ministerial face than with any attempt to improve local governance in this country. They were issued just before Christmas—sneaked out without even a press release. It is also typical of the Government' s contempt not only for the House but for local government that, had the previous debate gone the distance, we would be debating this matter—if at all—very late tonight, possibly at 11 o'clock or 11.30. It is by good fortune rather than good management by the Government that we are having this debate now.
  I made a prediction on 4 July last year, when we had a serious debate—on the Conservative Benches, in any event—on the sort of changes that the Government were trying to make in access to information in local government. The Government had brought out draft regulations and were sending them out for consultation. I said then that
  eventually regulations will be produced. One wet afternoon, they will pass through some part of the House. By then, the spotlight will have turned on something else.
  I cannot judge whether it is raining, but that afternoon—or evening—has arrived.
  This is all part of the process that the Government call local government modernisation. However, too much of it amounts to being anti-democratic and anti-local government. Because the new structures of cabinets or executives will in effect give little or no choice to councils. I said on a previous occasion that the Minister was the Henry Ford of the local government world—we could have any colour we liked, as long as it was black. In this instance, we can have any type of structure we like as long as the Government wish to impose it. I appreciate the Minister of State's sensitivity on these matters, but if she interrupts her conversation with the Whip briefly to listen to some of the arguments, she might be in a position, just for once, to answer the points raised in the debate.
  We are not the only ones, by any manner of means, who have expressed concerns about the overall effect of the changes on local government. They encourage the sort of one-party states that we see in some Labour-controlled councils, and encourage a culture of secrecy and exclusion. No wonder that Councillor Brendan Bird of Hammersmith and Fulham, a leading member of the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, said of the Government's proposals:
  If this is modern, why do all the good o1' boys love it so?—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 261–2.]
  The answer, then and now, is simple. The one-party states which had always sought to make decisions in small groups behind closed doors were allowed to do so in the full and certain knowledge that they were conducting their iness according to the Government's previous . The net result is that the Government are
  868
  cementing in the oligarrchies—the small groups running the councils—and telling them that they can carry on their business as they have always done, in small groups that are accountable to no one.
  The Government's structures would have applied to every council in the country, save that it was conceivable that they would have been defeated in the House of Lords. It was only a last-minute deal between the Government and the Liberal Democrats that exempted some smaller shire districts from the regulations but imposed them across the great majority of local government in England and Wales.
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this relatively early stage in his remarks. He will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that under the proposed regime, only key decisions will have to be made in public. For my enlightenment and edification, can my hon. Friend offer any indication of what the definition of "key decision" is likely to be?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend has characteristically cut to the heart of the regulations. If he will bear with me, I will deal with his point in detail in a moment.
  As the Local Government Chronicle put it recently, the cabinet system is failing to impress, let alone the regulations about secrecy in local government cabinets. It said that a survey of councillors by Bristol city council found that many were unhappy about the replacement of the committee system with five scrutiny commissions. Some 86 per cent. of the 22 councillors who responded said that scrutiny was less effective. No one thought that it was more effective One councillor said:
  Bring back the committee system. It worked and all members were involved in the decision-making process.
  This is a two-stage problem. The Government are requiring the majority of councils to bring in an executive system which, in effect, banishes the majority of councillors from any direct input into decisions made by the councils. The Government's proposals to increase secrecy in local government then make that process even more of a problem. It is no wonder that many Labour councillors have expressed their concerns and opposition.
  It is only because the Government were forced into a partial U-turn by the Opposition, the Lords and their own Back-Bench rebels that we have these new regulations and the concept of key decisions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has referred. Our position on key decisions has always been the same. How do we differentiate between a key decision and a non-key decision? Who is to choose what is a key decision? Even more importantly, why bother making that distinction? If matters are really important, they should be debated in the full glare of the public eye unless there is some circumstance of confidentiality, as is the situation now. If they are not that important, why should they be conducted in private?
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who takes the decision now as to which decisions are taken in public in committee, and which are not?
  Mr. Waterson: As the right hon. Lady well knows, the majority of issues on a particular agenda are heard in

  869
  public. Usually, at the end of the meeting there are items that may be subject to confidentiality. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady will have a chance to defend these bizarre and byzantine regulations in due course, if she can just contain herself. As she knows, most agendas have items at the end which are dealt with confidentially—and for all the usual reasons of confidentiality, quite properly.
  The Government are in a real mess over secrecy in local government because they are not big enough to admit that they got it wrong and to return to the status quo. Let us remember what leading members of the Government have said in the past about secrecy and openness. The Prime Minister, no less, said:
  We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity …
  He also said:
  The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity …
  I wonder whether he or, indeed, the Minister, remembers those remarks.
  Here is another interesting quote from the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher):
  Labour believes that democracy and openness should prevail, not patronage, sleaze or secrecy …
  I checked the last edition of the Evening Standard when I was having a cup of tea, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman currently owns up to six homes, and who knows how many it will be by the end of the debate?
  When all those worthy statements of intent actually hit reality, we found a different kettle of fish. Let us not forget the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes). In last December's Municipal Journal, the non. Lady stated:
  Let's have no fantasies about this being an open regime … this does not mean that the executive must always meet in public. Councillors must be able to meet in private to discuss broad options, to have their political disagreements.
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady wants to correct me, she can do so in due course. She, too, has made some interesting comments on these matters—not least during the Standing Committee of the Local Government Act 2000. She said:
  We are attempting to change the structure in order to secure levels of accountability hitherto unknown in local government.
  We agree with that statement. The right hon. Lady certainly has been trying to achieve levels of accountability hitherto unknown in local government; the trouble is that they are lesser levels than pertained in the past. She also said that
  I am not at all convinced that we shall secure openness by requiring that all meetings must be in public.
  What has the Minister got against meetings held in public?
  Last May, in an interview with the Local Government Chronicle, the Minister mused on the purpose of her proposed reforms. I cited the interview during the Standing Committee. The right hon. Lady said:
  It is not feasible to have effective decision making when all of the thinking is done in the glare of publicity, because then people will not be thinking the unthinkable.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 May 2000; c. 267–75.]
  870
  There we have it. That seems to be the philosophy that has guided the right hon. Lady in producing the regulations and their recent predecessors.
  In stark contrast, the official Opposition have a strong and consistent record on the promotion of open local government. In 1960, when Baroness Thatcher—as she then was not—was a new Back-Bench Member, she steered through a private Member's Bill that was enacted as the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. For the first time, councils were forced to open up all meetings to the press and the public.
  The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985—also passed by a Conservative Government—allowed the public access to key council papers three days before meetings. It is no wonder that Mr. Andrew Ecclestone of the Campaign for Freedom of Information remarked:
  We are now finding a Labour government removing the rights Mrs Thatcher gave us.
  Is not that incredible?
  Even in the teeth of such criticism, the Minister carried on. We heard comments such as those made by Sir Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association who talked of witnessing the "strange death" of local democracy. The Society of Editors noted that, as a result of the reforms, there would be a reduction in the flow of information to the public and to the media.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: During the John Smith memorial lecture on 7 February 1996, was it not the height of hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to say:
  The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to rephrase the remarks he used about the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Was it not totally inconsistent and contrary to the high public standards that one would expect from the Minister who is first among equals in this country when the Prime Minister made the following comment? In 1996, he said:
  The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity.
  Labour purport to be the Government of openness and freedom of information, but the Prime Minister is trying to cloak local government in secrecy through this statutory instrument.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. After four years, we are used to such hypocrisy from the Government.
  Several independent organisations criticised the Government's proposals. The National Union of Journalists noted that cabinets or executives meeting behind the closed doors that are being imposed will deny basic access to local democracy. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives also criticised the proposals. The list goes on: the Local Government Information Unit, Charter 88 and the Campaign for Freedom of Information all criticised what the Minister was about.

  871
  There has not been much improvement. In the teeth of a Back-Bench rebellion—from the vast swathe of empty Benches behind the Minister, I assume that it has been seen off—the Government got themselves into a terrible mess; since then, they have been bashed from pillar to post trying to find a solution—to satisfy not the Opposition or local government, but the Labour rebels on the Back Benches and in local government. They rushed out draft regulations, relying on the bizarre distinction between key and non-key decisions.
  Most of us will have received a briefing from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has a distinguished record on dealing with such issues over the past six to nine months while the legislation was going through the House. The CFI points out that
  there remain serious concerns that the Regulations will increase secrecy in local government if adopted in their present form.
  Because of the distinction between key and other decisions, the CFI is concerned that
  There is no minimum standard of openness which would apply to all councils.
  That is right. Such a provision is notably absent from the regulations.
  The CFI also notes:
  Where decisions are based on draft reports, no advance disclosure is required.
  That provision seems to have crept in since our last debate on the proposals. The CFI states:
  This is carte blanche to suppress embarrassing information.
  Mr. Peter Luff: From my hon. Friend's visits to Worcestershire, he will be aware that there are deep reservations in the county about all the proposals. I am particularly alarmed about the impact of key decisions. An enormous electoral ward such as Bowbrook or Inkberrow, where huge decisions could be taken affecting communities, will not be subject to openness under the proposals. Why are huge electoral divisions excluded in that monstrous way?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend has made an important point to which I shall return in a moment. The CFI is also most exercised on that matter.
  A new ground for secrecy has crept into the latest version of the regulations—it certainly was not included in the draft regulations on which consultations were held last summer. The requirement to meet in public when discussing key decisions can be got around if the executive asserts that the main purpose of the meeting is to be briefed by officers. I can think of no Conservative-run council which would stoop to such a base subterfuge, but I can certainly think of a few Labour or Liberal Democrat councils where that might be an attractive option.
  The CFI is absolutely right in its comments on the definition of a key decision. The definition is to be made by the people who take the decisions in a council. The CFI states:
  We believe a substantial step backwards into secrecy will occur if the Government does not set national minimum standards of openness for local government.
  Mr. Bercow: Surely the whole issue of key decisions regnant with uncertainty and arbitrariness. The matters
  872
  that are judged to be key decisions need not necessarily be of a party political character. Is my hon. Friend aware that I was a member of Lambeth borough council, as the councillor for the St. Leonard's ward from 1986 to 1990, and that there were members on both sides of the council who genuinely believed—I did not agree with them, but I respected their view—that the decision to allow a circus with performing animals to take place at a venue in the borough was the issue of the greatest moment that they had ever considered? Other members took a different view. Would we meet in public or in private? Would the decision he key or marginal—who knows? Will my hon. Friend advise me?
  Mr. Waterson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's distinguished career it local government before he came to this House. He raises a good example of a key decision. I do not want to go into defining the fabled key decisions too much, as the Government have become so contorted in trying to do so that they are in danger of sucking some perfectly sensible people into the black hole that they have created.
  The CFI has tried to fix a figure for the amount of money that would identify a key decision. It has suggested a national financial threshold, but we do not agree. That seems to us merely to pander to the absurdly complex and bureaucratic system that the Government have produced because they cannot bring themselves to say that they were wrong and that the previous system should be reintroduced.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is not the kernel of the regulations that efficient councils such as my own Cotswold district council would want, wherever possible, to hold meetings and debates in public? Only inefficient councils with something to hide will hide behind these regulations and try and hold meetings and take decisions in private.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right, and has touched on the whole point of the debate. Regulations that are too complex will cause ill-intentioned people to find a way around them. The simple rules about openness and disclosure in local government that obtained under successive Conservative Governments meant that all meetings—in council and committee—and the relevant agendas and papers were open to the public, except where there were legitimate reasons for confidentiality. It is much more difficult to get around a simple rule such as that.
  I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the key decision definition. The CFI stated:
  The critical failing of the definition is that a decision which significantly affects people in one ward will not be a key decision.
  How bizarre can one get? That must be wrong according to any view.
  Mr. David Lidington: In a county council area, one electoral division might include several different village communities. Does not my hon. Friend agree that a council decision with a serious impact on more than one hamlet or village in a rural area would therefore not qualify as a key decision under regulation 8 of the draft regulations?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. The provision is typical of the metropolitan liberal elite that drives

  873
  Government policy in this and so many other areas. The Government assume that all wards are inner-city wards, with people crammed into a relatively few streets. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, some wards cover several different communities, with different needs and aspirations.
  Mr. Luff: In Worcestershire, a critical decision must be made about the location of an incinerator. It will be located in one electoral division of the county, not more than one. No decision is more sensitive or more key than that, but it will not constitute a key decision under the rules, and meetings about it will be held in private.
  Ms Armstrong: Yes, it will be a key decision.
  Mr. Luff: The Minister, from a sedentary position, shouts that it will be a key decision but she clearly does not know her own regulations.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend gives an extremely good example. Few decisions could be more acutely sensitive locally than the siting of an incinerator. Under the definition of key decisions, because the decision that my hon. Friend describes would affect only one ward, that decision would not have to be subject to the requirements of the regulations. That makes no sense at all.
  The CFI went on to say:
  At present, the initial opinion of the author of the report as to whether publication would disclose "confidential" or "exempt" material
  within the terms of the Local Government Act 1972—
  can he challenged by a councillor present it the committee meeting considering the item.
  Those Conservative Members who have been in local government will remember that. If the meeting decides otherwise, councillors can consider so-called exempt material in public. Under the regulations, that would not be possible.
  The Minister does not need to take my word about the nonsenses that the regulations create. Only the other day, in an article in the Local Government Chronicle, George Jones and John Stewart, two leading professors of local government, wrote:
  The Local Government Act 2000 is a piece of bad legislation. It is a classic example of central prescription based on no real evidence.
  They also mentioned secrecy and key decisions. Of the latter, they wrote:
  This wheeze immediately raised the problem of what a key decision is; one person's minor decision is another's key decision.
  I refer the House back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The authors of the article conclude:
  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.
  They end with a crushing indictment of the Minister when they state:
  These changes show how little had been thought through initially, and reinforce the case against detailed central prescription. How much better it would have been for the government to have allowed innovation, and not assumed it knew what form the innovation should take.
  874
  It is typical of the Government that their original intention was to reduce accountability and encourage secrecy in local government, and to create a new culture of concealment. They have been pushed from pillar to post by the Opposition in this House, by the Lords and by some of their own Back Benchers. The regulations are all about saving the Minister's face.
  Ministers should admit that they got it hopelessly wrong on cabinet secrecy and revert to the clear position that existed under the previous Conservative legislation. The press and public currently have a right to attend council meetings and committees and to see council papers three days in advance of those meetings. The next Conservative Government will reverse any changes that are passed and will require all cabinets to be open to press and public, as was previously the case. We will promote openness and accountability in local councils, even if the Government will not, and we will seek to reinvigorate local democracy. Conservatives are now the party of local government.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I was interested in an intervention made earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the speech by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), asking the latter to deal with the important question of key decisions. It took about eight minutes before the hon. Member for Eastbourne got around to addressing that issue. After some introductory remarks, I hope to get to it rather more quickly.
  During the passage of the Local Government Bill, Liberal Democrats here and in another place made it clear that we were worried about early versions of the Bill in respect of freedom of information. The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly pointed out that the Conservative Members worked hard to persuade the Government to change their mind on the issue, but Liberal Democrat Members did too. We were delighted therefore that the Government were prepared, over time, to make changes in that regard.
  Mr. Bercow: I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the Liberal Democrats' determination to force a Government rethink but, in view of the fact that his party prides itself on its grounding in local government, why—and it is a simple point—is he not accompanied by a single colleague from his own party as he eloquently makes his points this evening?
  Mr. Foster: I could do a statistical analysis of what percentage of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are present in the Chamber, but I shall not stoop to that.
  I wish to discuss the key points of the debate. I said that I was delighted that the Government were prepared to move forward. Given the assurances that were given during the passage of the Local Government Act 2000, Liberal Democrats were prepared to support the Act at its final stage. Therefore, I want to put it firmly on the record that we will not support the Government's regulations this evening. The regulations are deficient in several respects and fall short of the assurances that were specifically given in debates on last year's Act. I shall come to those assurances later.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Eastbourne, we do not advocate a return to the status quo. There can be no doubt whatever that, in certain respects, the Government's

  875
  proposals for freedom of information are a move forward that should be welcomed. It is acknowledged that the regulations require executives to meet in public when they discuss key discussions, and they relate not only to the decisions that are taken collectively, but to those that are taken by individuals. That is an important point. The regulations also require greater advanced availability of papers relating to important decisions than is required at present of certain categories of exempt information that is not disclosed. That is a helpful move forward.
  However, we are genuinely concerned that the regulations could lead to the some local councils returning to the dark ages if they wish to do so. They could hold many more of their deliberations in secret.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne has dealt with the three key concerns. The first is the issue that was touched on by the hon. Member for Buckingham. What exactly is a key decision? The Government's proposals will, in effect, leave it to local authorities to decide what the definition should be. That could lead to authorities being secretive if they so wish.
  We are also concerned about aspects of the regulations. The use of the get-out clause on draft papers could determine what types of information would be prevented from being made available. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, we are also concerned with the new provision that has suddenly and rather mysteriously appeared. It will allow executives to meet in public when discussing key issues, but will enable them not to do so if the executive itself asserts that the main purpose of the meeting is simply to be briefed by officers.
  The definition of a key decision is pivotal and the regulations have two approaches to it. One definition is that a decision is likely to be a key decision if it involves significant expenditure or savings in relation to the council's budget for a service. The problem is that it is then left to the individual council to decide what constitutes a significant expenditure or a significant saving. Those authorities that wish to be secretive could set a high figure, but those that wish to be fairly open could set a low figure. That would lead to the problem that councils across the country could set very different standards. Surely freedom of information is a basic right to which all citizens are entitled regardless of where they live or by which council they are served.
  The second part of the definition allows people to consider how many wards in a council area are likely to be affected. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised an interesting point when he said that an incinerator in his area would be sited in just one ward. That is an important decision but, under the regulations, a key decision must affect two or more wards. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider his example more closely, because the council's expenditure on the incinerator would be almost minimal. Therefore, the decision would come under neither of the two categories and the council would be entitled to determine that the matter was not a key decision, so it would be able to discuss it in private.
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. A waste incinerator would affect the whole population in a council area and the expenditure on it
  876
  would affect the whole population. Even if the decision were taken at arm's length, a significant sum of money would be involved, so no one could pretend—here or anywhere else—that it would not be a significant decision. The matter would have been scrutinised long before the executive or mayor came to take such a decision. In those circumstances, to pretend that it would not be a key decision is an insult to the council and to local people.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that strongly expressed response. She is helping us to begin to tease out, and has put on record, her understanding of what will happen if the regulations are accepted unamended.
  I have another example from my constituency. The local council had to decide whether to close a small school for infants that serves the people in only one ward. According to the officers' report, only a small saving would be made, so they argued that the decision was being taken for purely educational reasons. Therefore, the decision affected only one ward and only a small sum of money was involved. That means that, under the regulations, the decision could have been taken in secret by the executive.
  Ms Armstrong indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foster: The Minister shakes her head, but if her understanding of the meaning of small sums of money and one ward is different from mine, we obviously have a difficulty.
  Mr. Bercow: I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. In the type of case that he has described, surely the only circumstances in which a debate on the decision would automatically be held in public would be either if the school building—by extraordinary serendipity—happened to cross a ward boundary and/or if parents from more than one ward sent their children to that particularly small school. Neither of those circumstances can be assured.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. One could start to develop all sorts of complex examples that involve bringing in pupils from other wards or show that a couple of bricks the outside the ward in question. However, the case that I have described is a good example of the problems that could occur if the council shows no good will and does not want to be open with the people that it seeks to serve. When the council clearly intends to discuss matters in secret, the regulations will make it perfectly possible for it to do so.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne also briefly touched on the issue of whethey it would be possible to avoid making information available to members of the public by keeping a report in draft form and by continuing to keep it in draft form up to the last minute. I raised this issue several times in the Committee considering the Local Government Act 2000. In response to one of my points, the Minister said:
  The hon. Member for Bath expressed concern that people might keep things in draft until very late to avoid having to disclose information at an early stage. We need to look at this carefully to find out whether we should stipulate in regulations the papers relating to a decision be made available at least a certain number of

  877
  days before a final decision is taken in all but the most urgent cases … We will certainly consider whether we should make such provision through regulations.
  Ms Armstrong: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the regulations, because they fully cover his concerns and he should be reassured?
  Mr. Foster: I have looked very carefully at the regulations, and I shall refer my remarks to regulation 9, the definition of report as it appears in regulation 2 and the guidance itself. However, I am totally unconvinced that the concern that I expressed has been covered. Indeed, the Minister wanted to take the matter further. She also said:
  any paper that goes to an executive member in relation to taking a decision will be made public at the same time.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 May 2000; c. 272–302.]
  At one point, the Minister was prepared to acknowledge that any paper that could be used in assisting an executive to come to a key decision would be made public.
  The Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has also studied the regulations and the guidance in considerable detail, is not convinced on this matter. However, if the Minister is convinced that all is well, perhaps we could consider whether it is possible to abuse what she seeks to introduce.
  Mr. Robert Key: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from regulation 8, can he tell me where the Secretary of State has published guidance on the meaning of the word "significant"? That is an absolutely crucial consideration. The regulations say that a council must have regard
  to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State
  when it determines what it thinks is significant. I have not seen that guidance. Has he?
  Mr. Foster: To be fair to the Minister, she has produced guidance that refers to the Government's understanding of the word "significant". Once the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will not find it especially convincing, but, more importantly, he will find that an individual council will be able to make one decision while another council makes a totally different decision based on the guidance offered by the Minister.
  Mr. Key indicated assent.
  Mr. Foster: That is my concern, and I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. [Interruption] The hon. Member for Buckingham asks about the issue of a key decision. That is also a significant issue, hence the two are intimately bound together.
  I am interested in whether there are measures to prevent abuse. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said on Report:
  Having said that, there is provision against abuse—for example, the possibility of reports remaining in draft form until immediately before a meeting.—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 265.]
  I should be grateful if the Minister could draw my attention specifically to the provision against abuse. I and others have looked for it, but there is no evidence in the regulations of effective safeguards against what the
  878
  Minister describes. Indeed, the assurance that safeguards would be provided was given in another place by the noble Lord Whitty, who said:
  we shall prevent by regulation any abuse covering the disclosure of draft reports.—[Official Report, House of Lords. 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 61.]
  I look to the Minister to tell us where we can find those safeguards.
  The new aspect of the regulations is that they will allow executives to meet in secret when they claim that the principal purpose of the meeting is for an office to brief a decision maker, or members of a decision-making body, on matters that are connected with the making of an executive decision. A number of bodies are concerned about that. The problem is that if a small but key decision on a significant issue is to be discussed at the same time as other matters, it is perfectly possible that, because it is only a small part of the business in hand, the executive will ensure that it is discussed and dealt with in secret session.
  I do not accept that all was well in the past, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested. Progress has been made. Nevertheless, in several key areas, the regulations are genuinely deficient. I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to think again and to take some of our significant and key concerns back to the drawing board, so that we will have another opportunity to consider them when hon. Members on both sides of the House might be able to give their support.
  8.36 pm
  Tony Wright: I have only three questions for my right hon. Friend. However, before I put those to her, I should explain that we are discussing the regulations because a particular model of local government is being developed. If we go back half a century, it is interesting to note that the great reformist idea was to try to model central Government on local government. A great man, called Jowett of Bradford—my right hon. Friend will know of him—tried to persuade everyone that if we could transfer the committee system of local government to central Government, we would improve the way in which the Government worked. That is a very interesting idea.
  However, we are now moving in the opposite direction. We want local government to adopt the Cabinet system, and that has implications for local government. One of the implications is that the way in which the Cabinet system works, within an envelope of secrecy, must be transferred to local government.
  Important issues are involved, although this is not the moment to debate them. Local government needs radical reform. It should offer a diversity of models—it should not be a monolith. I hope that the Government's reforms will work out well. In some respects, I am agnostic about them, but I hope that they will produce the advantages promised.
  I agree with what has been said about the provisions, but I shall not repeat all the good points that have been made. In some respects, what we are offered represents a gain on the existing situation—for example, with regard to access to papers when key decisions are taken. I pay tribute to the Government for that and for having listened to all the representations that were made.

  879
  There was considerable disquiet about the suggestion that there had been a decline in openness as a consequence of the larger changes being made to local government. The Government made a genuine attempt to listen to those concerns and produced the "key decision" formulation in response.
  I shall set out my questions, which I hope my right hon. Friend will answer when she responds to the debate. What is to prevent local authorities from taking a restrictive view of the regulations? With respect to key decisions, the budgetary provision or the significant effects provision, what is to prevent individual local authorities from taking a restrictive view of those matters? No figure is specified in the budgetary provision, so radically different views could be taken about what counts and what does not. With regard to significant effects, the guidance refers to the traditional practice of local authorities as to whether they delegate such matters to officers or committees for decisions.
  It would be odd if an authority that had traditionally been restrictive in such matters were allowed to continue to be restrictive. The question what prevents the regulations and the associated guidance from being interpreted in a wholly restrictive way by a local authority is important, and the Minister should answer it.
  The second question arises out of that. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why she felt that it was not possible or necessary to provide some kind of standard minimal guidance for authorities to follow? Despite celebrating the diversity of local government, as I have just done, there is an expectation that there will be a common minimal standard across the board.
  We want the larger reforms to work and to carry people's confidence. If it came to be thought that the provisions were being used in a way that denied the access that the Government had intended, there would be an erosion and a corrosion of belief among the public in the Government's wider reforms. That would have extremely damaging consequences. Why do we not require some kind of minimal floor, so that everyone knows that there is to be a certain commonality of access across the country?
  The third question follows from that. Can the Minister tell the House what can be done if restrictive behaviour occurs—if some councils abuse the provision to ensure sufficient access? What can people do? It has been suggested that they can kick up a fuss, but we know how effective that would be. There is talk of judicial review, but that is not an option in the vast majority of cases.
  Will it be possible for people to complain to the local government ombudsman that their authority has interpreted the guidelines wrongly, or has given the guidelines a restrictive interpretation that was not intended when they were introduced? If my right hon. Friend could give an assurance on that point, along with the other two, that would help in considering the regulations.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: Among Members of Parliament for my constituency, there has been a tradition of seeking openness in local government. My late predecessor, Michael Hamilton, in his early years representing Salisbury, introduced a private Member's Bill which allowed planning committees to sit in public for the first time. I feel strongly about the issue.
  880
  Members of the public do not realise the nature of the process that we are going through tonight. An official from a Government Department said to me this morning in a Committee that the regulations would be the subject of a statutory instrument and would therefore be approved by Parliament. I had to explain to the official that under the statutory instrument procedure, the question put by the Chairman of the Committee is not "Does the Committee approve?", but "Does the Committee agree that it has considered the proposition?" That is it. The Executive are simply informing the House what they intend to do. Then, through the usual channels, we have to fight like mad for such a prayer as this to be considered on the Floor of the House. Of course, the Government then use their majority to get their way. The negative procedure needs to be explained because it is widely misunderstood outside the House.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. With such prayers, it is scarcely open to us to approve a measure, and if we find an error, we certainly cannot change it. That is one of the main shortcomings of parliamentary procedure today.
  Mr. Key: My right hon. and learned Friend is, of course, wholly right. The fact that we cannot make any amendment is another of the objections to the statutory instrument procedure.
  I was disturbed by the timing of the statutory instrument. It was cynically tabled within a day or two of the House rising for the Christmas recess and it cynically came into effect on 9 January—the day after the end of the Christmas recess. That is extraordinary, and it certainly does not show any noble intention on the part of the Government. Hon. Members may call me cynical if they like, but if I had tried that ruse when I was a local government Minister, I would not have got away with it.
  Mr. Desmond Swnyne: Was there any press notice stating that the regulations were to come into force?
  Mr. Key: Not that I saw, and I keep a pretty sharp eye on such things. My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that we do not know what is happening. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions if she wants. No doubt she will return to the point later.
  One of the most extraordinary things about these extraordinarily prescriptive regulations is that, only a decade ago, the then Government—of whom I was proud to be a member with responsibility for local government—was berated by the Labour party because we could not concede the principle of general powers for local government. Indeed, such arguments were frequently deployed by those then on the Opposition Front Bench, but we said that the tradition in this country was that local authorities operated under statutory obligations laid down by the House. However, as soon as the Labour party came to power, all the pious talk of general regulations went out the window, and we now find that we have to consider such incredibly prescriptive regulations.
  The definition of the word "significant" matters very much indeed. I look forward to the Minister telling us where that word is defined. No doubt it has been defined

  881
  if she says so, but it is certainly not helpful that the House does not know what the Secretary of State may think significant.
  I have only one other comment to make, and it is in relation to regulation 12, which deals with publicity in connection with key decisions. Councils—and Governments—often resort to a practice that I find increasingly surprising. In my constituency, under the Liberal Democrat council, in coalition with the Labour party—each party is a tiny minority, and by far the largest number of elected councillors belong to the Conservative and Independent group, but the Liberal Democrats and Labour have a pact, which gives them control—it is extraordinary how often, when a tricky issue must be explained to the public, or an unpopular issue has been raised in committee and a difficult decision taken, it is not the chairman of the local authority committee who goes on local radio or does the inter hew with the local newspaper but the officers of the authority who are put up to defend the local authority's actions. That practice is much to be deplored.
  I wonder whether my hon. Friends have come across such behaviour; perhaps they will give examples. We also see it in Government. From the top down, there is a culture of behaving in that way. Civil servants—or, in the case of the Ministry of Defence, senior officers—are asked to write letters to newspapers, or to appear on television to explain something that the Government have done.
  Local authority officers are too often put up to speak for the councillors. The names of the officers of the district council in my constituency who do the explaining to the public are far better known than those of the councillors who take the decisions. If I were to ask my constituents the name of the chairman of the planning committee or the area committee, they probably would not have a clue, but they would know who the chief executive or the relevant officials were, because they are always turned out to make excuses for the councillors.
  Ms Armstrong indicated assent.
  Mr. Key: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady agrees with me, on that point at least.
  I hope very much that that practice will not be used as often as it has been, so I am surprised that, given that the right hon. Lady agrees with me, there is nothing in the regulations before us, which stipulate in enormous detail what should happen, that defines the parameters within which elected district councillors or local authority councillors can choose whether to explain or to undertake the publicity in connection with key decisions, rather than the officers of the local authority. That is deplorable. It should be a matter of great honour to local authorities that the elected representatives of the people should explain their actions. That is what accountability is meant to be all about, but accountability is lacking in this instance, just as it appears to be lacking in the regulations that we are considering and in the Government's whole approach.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am genuinely confused about the Minister's position. I cannot fathom why there would be an attempt to reduce the standards of openness that we have seen across the
  882
  country, historically, since the days when Lady Thatcher opened up local government in many ways. I puzzle on that dilemma. I accept, as the Minister has said across the Floor of the House, that that is not the intent of the regulations, and yet the general conclusion of many hon. Members and the tentative questions of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) show that there is unease about the drafting of the regulations.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made a pretty good fist of outlining the anxieties of the Campaign for Freedom of Information about the measure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) did likewise by highlighting the detail of some of those arguments. I do not intend to read the Campaign for Freedom of Information briefing into the record because I know that the Minister has a copy, and that those in her Box are fully apprised of the arguments. However, too many people are arguing that, following the introduction of the regulations, the standards of access and openness will be lower, under the new regime, than they were before.
  Ms Armstrong indicated dissent.
  Mr. Shepherd: I see that the Minister disagrees, but because the argument about any of these things no longer lies in this Chamber but will be pursued in the other Chamber, I must tell her in truth that I support the arguments advanced in the Campaign for Freedom of Information brief. I believe that they are reasonable and must be addressed.
  Consistency between local authorities is important. Why should one local authority have a lower standard than that of the local authority just across its boundary? In the concept of the financial quantum, what determines what is a "significant" amount? The regulations are detailed, so could they not try to identify that? The discussions must be open or public if they involve amounts above a certain figure. It is not a question of war or battle with the Minister; it is about trying to achieve an objective. I do not think that, as drafted, the regulations do that. There has not been an advance but a retreat.
  I accept that that is a difference of judgment. However, in these matters, the devil is in the detail. Every Member represents local authorities to some extent, and Members on both sides of the House do not want access to local government information to be diminished. However, the regulations do that and should be withdrawn or redrafted and reissued.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who speaks with such authority on these matters. I have no such knowledge or authority; I am merely the layman fumbling through the devil of the detail in the regulations.
  The Prime Minister told the Campaign for Freedom of Information in March 1996:
  We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity.
  It bears repetition that, on the basis of that principle, the residents of New Forest district should, as a matter of principle, be entitled to expect greater scrutiny of and access to information after the regulations are passed.

  883
  However, in my estimation, that is not the case. That is partly a consequence of the Local Government Act 2000 and the move from the committee system, and partly a conclusion that I reached having made my way through these rather detailed and confusing regulations.
  Regulation 5 in part II states that documents will be made available only after a decision has been reached, and
  as soon as is reasonably practicable.
  My understanding is that, at the moment, my constituents can inspect such documents three days before the meeting of the council.
  Ms Armstrong: I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman this, but councils still have to produce documents a minimum of three days before such meetings. They have to produce a list of key decisions several months before and then they have to report. The hon. Gentleman is talking about reporting arrangements on decisions that have been taken. I should hate him to continue to appear so confused before the House.
  Mr. Swayne: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for straightening me out on that one. It is useful to hear her answer. Perhaps she can be as helpful about regulation 21(1)(c) in part V, which lays out the grounds on which the public can reasonably be excluded from a council meeting. It provides reasons and states:
  in view of the nature of the item, that if members of the public were present during the transaction of that item, the advice of a political adviser or assistant would be disclosed to them.
  There is a thing—the advice of a political adviser should be made known to the public. I should have thought that political matters were the one thing on which the public would demand scrutiny. Very often, that is what divides councillors, and it is only appropriate that the public should have access to that information. It strikes me as monstrous that they do not. However, time is short and I am keen to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say.
  8.58 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I am pleased to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) who, I understand, has just been appointed to the Opposition Front Bench. In those circumstances, he will have to read his brief rather better than he did this evening. Indeed, he will have to understand the interaction between local government and the health service a little more effectively than he seemed to understand local government in his remarks.
  Much of what we heard from the Opposition was a bit disappointing. I felt that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was simply playing politics rather than seriously trying to see how we can move forward on the issue.
  I appreciated, however, the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I am aware of his consistent interest in the issue, and I assure him that the overall regime that we are introducing will be far more demanding on councillors than any previous regime. I assure him also that some of today's malpractice will not be possible under the new regime. I shall deal with the latter point in more detail later.
  884
  I am happy to say that the regulations will have to be considered regularly. Ministers will have to examine both the regulations and the guidance to ensure that they are achieving our overall aim of introducing in local government a new culture of openness and public accessibility. We want the public to know that their council is acting for them and on their behalf, and to see that in the way in which the council works at every level. That objective underpins everything that we are seeking to do.
  The issues dealt with in the regulations are important and difficult. However, throughout the process of working out the detail of out policy we have been consulting widely, including with the Campaign for Freedom of Information. I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne properly reflected the campaign's views. However, such representations are a part of debate and I do not object to that.
  We have discussed, both in the House and with all those involved, precisely what details should be included in our access to information regime. I know that there have been concerns, including among my hon. Friends, about access to information. Those concerns are quite understandable: the regime is central to the success of our policies to make council decision making more efficient, transparent and accountable. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns and we have acted on them. At the final stages of our debate on the Bill, which is now the Local Government Act 2000, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) explained in detail our proposed access to information regime. These regulations put that regime in place.
  The regime applies to every council once it has adopted an executive constitution. It is a regime of greater openness. I happily accept that we have been helped in putting together the regime by the contributions of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I remind the House that he is on record, in the Local Government First magazine of 6 January, as saying:
  the Tories should be open and honest about their own hypocrisy—at the time they attacked the Liberal Democrats for negotiating with the Government to achieve much more openness.
  As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, we have delivered much more openness. Other Opposition Members, however, argue that the regulations will shut out the press and the public from the council chamber and say that that might create a breeding ground for corruption and inefficiency. They argue also that we somehow sneaked out the regulations, just before Christmas, when no one was looking. They have also talked great nonsense about key decisions. I shall deal in turn with each of those points.
  As for the old regime, it is nonsense to say, as Conservative Members do, that the regulations will shut out the press and the public from the council chamber. I accept that, in the past year, regardless of political persuasion, some co moils have become far too secretive while purporting to be moving towards new constitutions. Such councils have not done a good job of making the case for local democracy. However, let there be no doubt that the Government deplore such behaviour regardless of which party is in control.
  It is woolly thinking to relate that increase in secrecy to the regulations that we are now considering. All those councils are operating under the old regime which

  885
  Conservative Members have been extolling. It is under the so-called part VA provisions that councils have shown that they can become more secretive. Yet Opposition Members want to retain those provisions. That is an example of the Tory hypocrisy that the hon. Member for Bath outlined.
  The world has moved on. If, as Conservative Members suggest, we overturned the regulations, we would be in an even worse predicament. Once a council adopted a new constitution, we would not return to the Opposition's beloved but flawed part VA. We would not revert to the status quo. If councils so chose, there would be total secrecy and the regime would lack even the flawed safeguards of part VA. No hon. Member supports that.
  Our regulations provide greater openness, transparency and accountability. They will deliver a regime under which people know what the executive will be discussing, who its members are, and therefore whom they can hold accountable. People will know to whom they are talking, and they will see the papers that the executive is considering. They will also be able to see key decisions being debated and taken collectively. Under the new regime, no significant decision will come as a surprise to anyone. No one can say that with confidence about the current regime.
  The new regime is the antithesis of the breeding ground for inefficiency and corruption that Conservative Members pretend the regulations will create. People will have far greater knowledge of, and access to, decision makers than they have ever had in the past. They will also be entitled to greater advance notice of decisions than under the old regime, and they will have access to papers that cover a much longer period.
  I shall now deal with the view that we sneaked out the regulations. When we published the regulations, I wrote to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—perhaps he does not communicate with the hon. Member for Eastbourne—and to the hon. Member for Bath and told them that we were laying the regulations. My noble Friend Lord Whitty wrote to the Front-Bench Members in another place, and we announced the regulations in a parliamentary answer. That is usual practice, but we went way beyond it. We wrote to the Newspaper Society, the Society of Editors, the editors of all the leading regional papers, the Local Government Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. Of course, everybody who has a copy of our guidance pack was sent an automatic update including the regulations and revised guidance. No one can claim that that constitutes "sneaking out" the regulations.
  Let me respond to some of the specific points that other hon. Members made. I accept that, under our regime, there are circumstances in which an executive can meet in private to think the unthinkable away from the public glare. I make no apologies for that—such meetings have always happened. Indeed, as long ago as 1986, shortly after the part VA provisions were enacted, the Widdecombe report to the then Secretary of State stated:
  It is a simple reality, which no legislation can alter, that politicians will develop policy options in confidence before presenting their final choice for public decision. We do not think this unreasonable. If the law prevents them from conducting such discussions in private in formal committees, then they will conduct them less formally elsewhere.
  We would not in any way wish to discourage individual local authorities from opening deliberative committees to the public and press if that is appropriate to their particular circumstances, but do not believe that they should be required by law to do so.
  886
  We therefore recommend that the legislation should be amended so that the rights of members of the public and press to attend meetings and inspect documents do not apply to meetings of committees and sub-committees which are purely deliberative with no powers to take decisions on behalf of the council.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House know from experience, the choice is either to bring such meetings within a formal framework and properly record them or, as under the current regime, which is so popular with the Conservative party, for them to be informal, unrecorded and unaccountable. As a woman, I might say that women are excluded from many such meetings, but I shall not stoop to that. We have chosen the former course. The Conservative party prefers the latter—informal, unrecorded and unaccountable meetings.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston: "There are no fantasies. This is an open regime." Her remarks happen to have been misquoted by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he recognises that.
  Thinking the unthinkable perhaps, the Conservative party asks why we cannot have a regime that requires that every decision-making meeting be open. The answer is simple. If two members of the executive got together and decided that they wanted to switch on a light or switch on the central heating, in law, that would be a decision. If a mayor and her or his deputy met to go to a function and decided to use the official car, that, too, would be a decision. No one would want such a situation to be dealt with in the way suggested by hon. Members—recording and publishing the fact that a decision is to be made, giving three days' notice. We must achieve sensible government while making the regime as open and accountable as possible.
  Several hon. Members referred to key decisions. We consider them to be ones that would involve significant expenditure of taxpayers' money or otherwise have an impact on the local community. As our statutory guidance makes clear, they are the decisions that councils often took to a committee. Although I accept that some people are concerned that too many decisions were delegated, we want to achieve continuity. Under the old regime, councils were not obliged to take such decisions to a committee, but they must now make them in public, although they were not previously obliged to do so. Councils can and do delegate such decisions to officers. Where that is the case, no one knows when or how the decision was taken.
  I agree that the precise definition of such decisions is difficult, but, for the first time, we have tackled that. I accept that we may not have got everything right, but we have produced a definition that nearly all the bodies involved—for example, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which the hon. Member for Eastbourne prayed in aid—helped to us to construct. Under our regulations, for the first time, even when decisions are taken by officers or individual members, they will be open. People will, for the first time, have advance notice of those decisions.
  The definition in the regulations is clear and practical, and I do not accept some of what Conservative Members said. I cannot believe that anyone would say that a decision to close a small school with three pupils was minor or did not involve major expenditure. In any case, such a decision would have to go to the Secretary of State.

  887
  We are being perverse. We must have a regime that makes it clear that the way in which councils operate has to be open, but we must also allow them to continue to govern. We must proceed by getting that balance right, and the regulations and the guidance seek to strike the right balance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) asked what would prevent a local authority from taking a restrictive view of the regulations. The regulations will go a long way to preventing those who have been involved in malpractice or poor practice from continuing such practice. We now have definitions and, if the regulations are implemented alongside the guidance, I do not believe that their effect can be as perverse as the effect of some regulations under current legislation.
  Why is it not possible to provide standard or minimum guidance for local authorities to follow? I think that that is what the guidance does: it sets out what we would expect the minimum to be, and what would happen in the event of restrictive behaviour. A citizen could go to the ombudsman, and, as my hon. Friend said, could take his case to judicial review; but we would expect value inspectorates looking at corporate governance to look at that as well. If we see it in context, it is clear that the regime will be far more rigorous and demanding, from the council's point of view, than it is now.
  I have not been able to deal with all the matters that have been raised because, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Eastbourne wants to speak again. I hope, however, that I have assured Members on both sides of the House that the regime will be more open. We are having to introduce definitions that have never been introduced before, and councils are able to make decisions completely.
  I could have given many examples of Tory authorities that have been involved in extremely bad practice, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about how we achieve the right balance to bring about the greatest possible openness. We want to do that without preventing councils from making everyday decisions—decisions that are not particularly significant, other than in that waiting to make them might prevent those councils from governing effectively.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Waterson: Let me make a few points in the time—barely two minutes—that the Minister has left me.
  The Minister says that the world has moved on. Sadly, the Minister has not. She seems to be trapped in a parallel universe, in which she believes that government by assertion will somehow make all the problems go away. She goes on and on about the new culture and so forth, but we are not impressed, the Campaign for Freedom of Information is not impressed, and nor for that matter is the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who asked three penetrating questions that went to the heart of what is wrong with the regulations.
  The Minister made a doomed attempt to defend the concept of key decisions. I think the House is as puzzled and as much in the dark as it was at the beginning of the debate. The regulations are riddled with holes and inconsistencies. Despite all the tinkering and the fiddling
  888
  and the wriggling, they are still thoroughly unsatisfactory. They will bring less openness to local government, and the next Conservative Administration will abolish them.
  Tonight's debate is not what the Government intended. They planned for no real debate, and for a decision—if any—to take place late at night, possibly involving no vote at all or a deferred Division. That is the Government's attitude to openness—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17(2).
  The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 266.

  Division No. 77

  [9.18 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Gray, James

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hammond, Philip

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hayes, John

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Horam, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Keetch, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

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

  Breed, Colin

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Burnett, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burstow, Paul

  Lansley, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cash, William

  Lidington, David

  Chidgey, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clappison, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Luff, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McCrea, Dr William

  Collins, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cotter, Brian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Cran, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Madel, Sir David

  Day, Stephen

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Malin, Humfrey

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fallon, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Feam, Ronnie

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Norman, Archie

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  889

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tredinnick, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyler, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

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

  Wells, Bowen

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whitney Sir Raymond

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willis, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mr. David Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

  Corston, Jean

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bailey, Adrian

  Darvill, Keith

  Banks, Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Denham John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Edwards Huw

  Borrow, David

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Galloway George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hain, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith

  890

  Hoey, Kate

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hume, John

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hurst, Alan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hutton, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Illsley, Eric

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pond, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Joyce, Eric

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kidney, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lammy, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Laxton, Bob

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lepper, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Levitt, Tom

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Singh, Marsha

  Unton, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lock, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Snape, Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  McDonnell, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McFall, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McIsaac, Shona

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  MacShane, Denis

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McWalter, Tony

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Stringer, Graham

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Maxton, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Merron, Gillian

  Timms, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Tipping, Paddy

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Todd, Mark

  Miller, Andrew

  Touhig, Don

  Mitchell, Austin

  Trickett, Jon

  Moffatt, Laura

  Truswell, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mountford, Kali

  Watts, David

  Mudie, George

  White, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  891

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Graham Allen and

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Local Government
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order. No. 118(6) (Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
      That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 4.

      Division No. 78]

      [9.37 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Allan, Richard

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ashton, Joe

      Coftey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coleman, Iain

      Bailey, Adrian

      Colman, Tony

      Ballard, Jackie

      Connarty, Michael

      Banks, Tony

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Beard, Nigel

      Corston, Jean

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cotter, Brian

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cousins, Jim

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cranston, Ross

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Crausby, David

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Benton, Joe

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Berry, Roger

      Dalyell, Tam

      Betts, Clive

      Darvill, Keith

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Borrow, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Denham, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Dobbin, Jim

      Breed, Colin

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Doran, Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dowd, Jim

      Burden, Richard

      Drew, David

      Burnett, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burstow, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Galloway, George

      892

      Gapes, Mike

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacShane, Denis

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gidley, Sandra

      McWalter, Tony

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McWilliam, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hain, Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hanson, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Healey, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Heppell, John

      Moore, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoey, Kate

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moriey, Elliot

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hume, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Illsley, Eric

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Joyce, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pike, Peter L

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pond, Chris

      Keetch, Paul

      Pope, Greg

      Kemp, Fraser

      Powell, Sir Raymond

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

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kidney, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Raynsford, Nick

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Lammy, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob

      Rogers, Allan

      Lepper, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooney, Terry

      Levitt, Tom

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Joan

      Livsey, Richard

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lock, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCrea, Dr William

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Macdonald, Calum

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McDonnell, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McFall, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      893

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Todd, Mark

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Touhig, Don

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Truswell, Paul

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

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Snape, Peter

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Soley, Clive

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Tyler, Paul

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Watts, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Stunell, Andrew

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Willis, Phil

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wood, Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      NOES

      Leigh, Edward

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      9.47 pm
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport yesterday afternoon replied to a question about the involvement of
      894
      the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in the passport application by Mr. Hinduja. He said that the right hon. Gentleman's sole involvement in the case was to ask his then Parliamentary Private Secretary to speak to the Home Office. It is perfectly clear that that answer was not correct.
      The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport yesterday may have answered that question incorrectly in an inadvertent manner because of the advice that he had received. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any request from the right hon. Gentleman for a parliamentary opportunity to set the record straight? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received no such request, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will have noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
      That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 21 December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.

      LEGAL SERVICES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Bar Practising Certificates) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 12 December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.

  Sittings in Westminster Hall
  Mr. Eric Forth rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to object to the motion?
  Mr. Forth: No, I would like a wee debate.
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.
  I am delighted that the House is so enthusiastic to discuss the motion, and I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is keen to discuss these issues. They are important.
  The House has had the opportunity to discuss the establishment of Westminster Hall. I know that there are different views in the House about its value, but this motion is not about Westminster Hall, but about the senior Members who should chair its proceedings. On 20 November, the House agreed that the Westminster Hall experiment should continue.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It would greatly assist the House if the Minister could tell us how the names of the additional Deputy Speakers, who will be appointed if the motion is carried, were arrived at. I am not suggesting that they would be not be suitable, but I would like to know how the names were arrived at.
  Mr. Tipping: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I will come to that point.
  The motion will ensure that the three current Deputy Speakers are not overburdened and overworked. The Modernisation Committee considered the issue and it came to the conclusion that extra help and support was needed to chair the important sittings in Westminster Hall. The House is being asked to decide who the new Deputy Speakers should be, and the Modernisation Committee recommended—the House has endorsed this—that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel should be appointed. Those four members of the panel have given their consent and their names are set out in the motion that the House is being asked to approve.
  I know that there is anxiety in the House about the term "Deputy Speaker". My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has raised the point before that there might be confusion between the traditional Deputy Speakers, who keep control in the Chamber, and the Deputy Speakers in Westminster Hall. It is an experimental matter and the House will wish to return to it when we have another opportunity to debate it and either extend the experiment or make it permanent. I commend the motion to the House. I am pleased to say that I believe that the four Members referred to in it will do an excellent job for us all.
  9.53 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: The Minister will know that I have only recently had the dubious pleasure of being seconded to the Modernisation Committee, so will he clarify one point? Of course, I have no objection to the four eminent names on the Order Paper and would not wish to challenge their suitability for the posts. However, all four of them already chair sittings in Westminster Hall, se what is the point of making them Deputy Speakers rather than Chairmen? I understand that they already discharge these duties.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has just said, it now appears that we are involved in a parliamentary mystery. The motion has been on the Order Paper for some time and the Government have not given the House an opportunity to debate it properly. The opportunity for debate has arisen only as a matter of happenstance; it was not the wish of the Government. As my hon. Friend asked, what is the point of the motion anyway? If these Members already chair the God-forsaken Westminster Hall, what is the point of the motion? That is the first little mystery for the Minister to clear up.
  I am much more worried about political correctness which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, absorbs me for most of my waking hours. When I look at the motion, I am very worried about the image that Westminster Hall will have if its sittings an: chaired by middle-aged white men who have spent a long, long time at Westminster. I suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, may have a little streak of political correctness, and no doubt would agree that, in this modern world, we expect gender balance, regional balance and, probably, a bit of ethnic balance.
  Mr. Hogg: The complaint goes wider because the list comprises one Conservative Member, three Labour Members and no Liberal Democrat Member. Is that really the balance that we want to achieve?
  Mr. Forth: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has pressed me on the matter of balance, because that is the theme of my initial remarks. Let us consider the composition of the Chairmen's Panel, which provides the raw material—if I can put it like that—of those hon. Members who are condemned to serve in Westminster Hall. Out of 27 members of the Chairmen's Panel, 15 are Labour Members, 9 are Conservative Members, two are Liberal Democrats and one is from the Scottish National party. On the basis of that, one wonders whether the motion provides the right proportions. I query the party balance and I am surd wised that the Liberal Democrats are not outraged at the fact that neither of their representatives is having a look in.
  Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not outraged because they are, after all, but part of the Labour party and are quite happy to have their interests represented by the three Labour nominees.
  Mr. Forth: I was just coming to that point, but let us leave the Liberal Democrats where they belong—

  897
  in obscurity—and concentrate instead on gender and ethnicity. One looks at the motion in vain for any gender balance or ethnic representation.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We are appointing eminent people because of seniority. Are we moving to a congressional system, in which a person becomes a Deputy Speaker or a Chairman of a Committee just because of seniority? That would be an important and novel departure for the House. I am not opposed to the seniority rule because it makes Chairmen independent of the Executive. However, that serious issue needs to be addressed.
  Mr. Forth: I must admit that I have a conflict of interest. As each general election rolls by and I am triumphantly re-elected, seniority starts to take on a certain appeal. Therefore, I am reluctant to comment on what my hon. Friend said.
  Mr. John Bercow: Why is neither my right hon. and learned Friend the M ember for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) nor my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) deemed suitable as nominees?
  Mr. Forth: I do not know the answer to that. However, I can say with some confidence that the women of this country will be outraged at the motion. I can just imagine that when women up and down the country hear about it and reflect on all the claims that the Government make about gender this and inclusiveness that, they will realise that they have the gall to introduce—
  Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: I am in full flight, but I shall give way in a minute.
  When women realise that the Government have introduced this motion, there will be a scandal throughout the length and breadth of the country.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an even greater scandal, because there are 100 female Members on the Labour Benches, any one of whom would be deemed suitable?
  Mr. Forth: I doubt the latter part of what my right hon. and learned Friend says. However, we shall come on to that in a moment.
  I want to put another worry on the record before I conclude my preliminary remarks. Three of the nominees are from English constituencies and one is from a Welsh constituency, but no one from north of the border is on the list. In spite of devolution, it is difficult to justify such a motion, in which the hon. Members mentioned come overwhelmingly—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Sittings in Westminster Hall

    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 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
    '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Allen.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

    (i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to Police Grant Reports (England and Wales) not later than Seven o'clock; and

    (ii) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government (Finance) not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Allen.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
    Motion made,
    That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. David Lammy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
    Motion made,

    That Dr. Nick Palmer be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Mark Hendrick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
    Motion made,

    That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee, and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

  Football Transfers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of the proposed abolition of football transfer fees by the European Commission. I have an interest in the matter, but not a registerable interest in the strictest sense: I am the parliamentary spokesman for the Scottish Professional Footballers Association. It is an unpaid post, but I am happy to perform the role of adviser on behalf of the SPFA.
  That organisation north of the border and the equivalent in England, under the stewardship of Gordon Taylor, have played an important role in the debate and have been vocal on behalf of the football players and, in some respects, the football clubs.
  I do not have a professional football club, or even a part-time football club, in my constituency. I take a keen interest in football, but in my constituency I have only two junior clubs—Arthurlie Juniors and Neilston Juniors—so I have no registerable interest or a local constituency football team to speak of in professional terms.
  Like me, many football fans throughout the country who support large teams and small teams are extremely concerned that major aspects of our national game may be under threat. Of course, the past few years have been a period of change in football. Much of the change has been good, but some of it has been very dangerous.
  If the European Commission makes the proposed changes unconditionally, without listening to the voices of the players, clubs and supporters, I fear for the future of many of our football clubs. Already, more than a quarter of the players in the Scottish premier league are from outside Scotland, and the number continues to increase. To some extent, that change has enriched the game, but it has also undermined much of the indigenous talent.
  There have also been changes in terms of salaries. The average income of players in the English premiership is £400,000 a year. Many earn a lot more, and some earn much less, but I am informed that the average salary is about £400,000 a year.
  As a consequence of the changes that have taken place, we have four leagues both in Scotland and in England. In Scotland, we have the Scottish premier league and the three other divisions. In England, we have the premiership and the three divisions below that.
  Those are the four official divisions, but clubs could be categorised in a different way: first, those that are extremely rich; secondly, those that are prosperous; thirdly, those that are struggling to get by; and fourthly, those that are impoverished in both football and financial terms.
  It is remarkable that such a situation exists in a country where football is our national sport, and in a nation where countless column inches are devoted to the world of football and the latest intricacies of a player's injury, cold or mood that day, and where football players internet sites receive tens of thousands of hits every day.
  900
  As a nation we are obsessed by football, yet we allow such enormous inequalities to permeate our national game. If that took place in society as a whole, the Government would be rightly punished and there would be a demand for firm and convincing action, but in the world of football it is unfortunately tolerated.
  Several people and organisations deserve the blame or the responsibility—perhaps some would say the acclaim—for that condition. I do not lay the blame at the footballing feet of the current Minister for Sport or, indeed, those of the Prime Minister; it involves cultural and financial developments and a shift in power. Perhaps the condition has always existed, but it has become more acute. If we are not careful, it will become much worse in the years ahead.
  Perhaps the European Commission can abolish transfer fees unconditionally and without compromise, but the first stage will involve abolishing transfer fees across national borders—so Forfar could still sell players to Rangers, and Bournemouth could sell them to Manchester United. That would still be a realistic proposition, but no one who knows anything about football truly believes that, if the European Commissions makes that alteration, the change will not quickly take place in the United Kingdom. As with Bosman, there will be court action. It will take only one court action to ensure that transfer fees will be swept away not only across European boundaries, but within domestic boundaries, and the lifeline for many clubs will be pulled away.
  A minority of clubs have sufficient revenue, but the gate receipts are insufficient for the vast majority in all the leagues throughout the United Kingdom. Some clubs survive on very low attendances. Their merchandising is limited, as is their use of the worldwide web, unlike some larger clubs. The television money is concentrated, in any meaningful sense, in t he hands of a minority of clubs. The once-in-a-decade hope of drawing a big club in an FA cup or a Scottish cup competition is but a dream except for a fortunate few.
  The transfer fee system offers those clubs a lifeline. Every few years they sell, perhaps reluctantly, some of their best or young and developing talent simply to pay the bills involved in stadium modernisation, to pay their players' salaries, to meet other overheads or perhaps to dedicate the money to youth development—an important issue. Nevertheless, that lifeline could be taken away and all those opportunities and funding chances could be lost.
  In the central belt of Scotland, teams such as Falkirk, Airdrie and Hamilton have all struggled to survive recently. A Scottish local town football team was in difficulty and crying out for change and support, so it adopted a political platform to ensure that its voice was heard during a by-election. I do not want to make too many predictions, bet I dare say that that will become commonplace in England as well. Hamilton football club, with an average attendance of 400 or 500, got four times that number of votes in the Hamilton by-election, beating the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.
  Mr. Bob Russell: I was supporting the hon. Gentleman until then.
  Mr. Murphy: Perhaps clubs will beat other parties, such as the Conservative party, into fourth or fifth place at by-elections in other constituencies. Clubs such as

  901
  Morton and Clydebank are homeless without funds and have an uncertain future. They may not even survive this season. The transfer fee system probably will not help them this season, but if their records and those of many other clubs now in difficulty are examined, it is obvious that one of the few things that has kept them alive was their ability to sell on some talent to the larger or neighbouring clubs. That ability will end.
  Tomorrow evening, Dumbarton football club will open a new stadium. It will do so not because of a great cascade of wealth downwards in the game, but largely because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I pay tribute to him for finding that money through the Football Trust and other sources. However, five or six clubs face real difficulties, and that number will multiply enormously if we are not careful and if we allow the European Commission to amend the rules unconditionally.
  I say without a trace of joy or satisfaction, but with a feeling of terror for many clubs, that if the European Commission continues on its current path without compromise, it is conservatively put that perhaps a quarter of Scotland's clubs—10 clubs—and perhaps an equivalent fraction in England would go bankrupt or, if they were professional, go part-time. A quarter of our clubs would disappear from our leagues simply as a result of the European Commission making that change; I predict that that would happen within five years.
  That is not the only problem with the proposed changes. The area that has not been talked about enough, and perhaps the greatest danger not only to our club system but to our national teams, is the fact that the abolition of transfer fees without age thresholds will undermine our national game by reducing our ability to grow our own domestic or indigenous talent. I suspect that the youth academies that are springing up in England as a condition of membership of the premiership, and I believe of the first division, would fade away. Where is the incentive to grow one's own talent when there is no transfer fee attached to that talent if it then moves on? Why not simply wait and buy the pre-prepared article—the fully developed player—without donating millions of pounds to a youth academy?
  The Scottish clubs have been much slower. Some have begun to put together youth academies, but if they have not set up a production line to grow their own talent under a system of transfer fees, why would they ever do it? What sense would it make to introduce youth academies and football learning academies when there is no transfer fee at the end of it if, after four or five years, that youth moves on free of charge?
  If we allow that system to develop, our national teams will no longer pick their teams from among the top domestic leagues; perhaps they already do not. The Scotland manager Craig Brown is doing an excellent job, but he would be forced to pick players from the bottom end of the English premiership and tie bottom end of the Scottish premier league. Teams that are struggling against relegation would sometimes provide the core of the Scottish national football team. I fear that there would be a similar situation in England, where the coach would import players from the lower leagues at the bottom end of the English premiership.
  We must introduce a threshold whereby clubs receive a transfer fee or substantial financial compensation for losing players, perhaps under the age of 23. There can be
  902
  a debate about the exact threshold, but there must be a threshold, so that the club is rewarded for investing in its future and the future of young talent in and around its area.
  Some foreign imports have contributed greatly to our national game, but unfortunately too many of them are mediocre players, in what is often now a mediocre league. The Scottish football league is not, colloquially, the Scots believe, something to be proud of. It is made up of at least three or four divisions. There are two teams at the top. Fortunately for me, they have started to take it in turns to win the league, but for a period one team used to win the league. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s it was one half of Glasgow, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s it was the other half. That is unhealthy. I fear that a similar situation is developing in the English premiership, with Manchester United winning more often than not. The national teams will be undermined enormously.
  Let us look ahead to the footballing environment that we shall have in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe if transfer fees are abolished. Forty years ago, the idea that a football player would command a transfer fee of £1 million would have seemed crazy. Only five or six years ago, the idea that a player would now regularly command an annual salary of £1 million would have seemed absurd. If there is increasing individualisation and a breakdown of team spirit, with very few superstars moving between clubs, we shall be in a very difficult situation.
  The abolition of transfer fees will work to the benefit of a very few star players who, I fear—this may be controversial—will move from team to team throughout the season. They will team up with their agent—who will make huge amounts of cash even though transfer fees have been abolished—and their sponsor, and shop around. They will shop around and European stars who, perhaps, are coming to the end of their careers, will sign for one or two weeks in big city clubs, get a share of merchandising and the television deal and then move on. That is not healthy. In future, we will see a period when individual stars will copyright their own names, images and everything about themselves so that they can attract even more funding.
  As parliamentary spokesman for the players' union in Scotland, surely I should welcome players becoming more prosperous. However, prosperity will be in the hands of the few, not the many. The majority of football players will have short-term contracts, if any at all. Teams will have no transfer fees and clubs will know that those players will command nothing, so there is no reason at all to tie them into the system.
  To wind up, some of those trends already exist and many of them are, perhaps, unstoppable. However, the proposed unconditional, uncompromising change by the European Commission will hasten the downfall of many of our clubs. If we think of the rich heritage across our continent, the famous and historic matches and brilliant individual flair and skill, and, in years to come, ask our own children which football player contributed most to European football and had the greatest lasting effect on our national game and the European game, sadly, the answer will be a gentleman called Bosman—not the great Platini or any other player. If we do not see meaningful change at this late hour in the European Commission's proposal, Bosman II will run him close as the second best known football player ever to play on our continent.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on securing a debate on the European Commission's present review of the football transfer system? I feel that the players' union in Scotland is very lucky indeed to have such a fine spokesman in the House. He has shown his deep concern for football from top to bottom and has represented strongly the views of many people in the country.
  The debate is of great interest. It has also been of great interest in Scotland, as my hon. Friend is aware; the Scottish Parliament itself has taken up the issue, which concerns everyone in football and all of those with an interest in its well-being. It is an issue of some complexity and, partly because of that, recent press comment has created a rather misleading impression of the progress of negotiations and, indeed, the Government's role in the matter. I am happy to set out the present position and discuss the Government's aims for the future of the transfer system and the steps that we are taking with football to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
  First, we must consider the reasons for the Commission's present review, which is a prerequisite for any informed discussion of the issue. It has been said that the Commission seeks nothing less than the destruction of the transfer system. The Government's understanding is that that is not the case. The Commission is legally obliged to investigate complaints made to it. In this case, the present review is a result of a complaint made to it some time ago by a Belgian trade union against FIFA's transfer regulations and of complaints from two clubs in the European Union.
  One complaint held that the present regulations restrict competition in the football market by concentrating sporting power in the hands of a small number of clubs that can afford inflated transfer fees for top players. It can be argued that the grounds of that concern are doubtful in the light of football's present economic structure. Player salaries may be thought to be more relevant. Whatever the merits, the Commission has raised legitimate concerns, including the possible effects of the remaining restrictions on players' freedom of movement following the important Bosman ruling.
  Following the Commission's statement of objections in 1998, FIFA was asked to make proposals for revising the regulations to address the concerns that arose from the original complaint. However, it took rather a long time to do that. The Commission is proceeding under an established administrative procedure and, to the Government's knowledge, its agenda is no wider than that. I should add that the Commission is currently considering only international transfer regulations—player moves between European Economic Area countries. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is possible, but by no means certain, that domestic transfer systems would have to be revised to reflect any reform of international regulations, as happened after the Bosman ruling. Whatever form it takes, reform of the transfer system will come from football itself. The Commission's role is to ensure that any new framework is compatible with European Union law and capable of withstanding any subsequent legal challenges.
  There have been calls recently for the Government to attempt to influence the negotiations by pursuing the matter with the Governments of other member states or
  904
  by some unspecified means. That is very understandable because the legal process in the European Union is often cumbersome and unexciting. However, it is important to realise that there are no easy answers in the matter and there are limits to what may reasonably be achieved. Having said that, the Government have been active throughout not only in helping football to achieve a solution, but in seeking to mobilise support in other European Union countries for the beneficial aspects of the current system and of football's reform proposals.
  Given the importance of football in our sporting culture, it is natural that the Government should have our own views on the future of the transfer system. We wish to see a framework that continues to support the smaller clubs which encourage the development of young players, promotes competition between clubs and affords stability to the sport. The Prime Minister has made that clear on a number of occasions, particularly in a very important joint statement in September with the German Chancellor. However, that does m t mean that we seek to defend every aspect of the current system, because the system has weaknesses.
  The current framework does indeed perform a role in supporting smaller clubs. It also encourages them to develop talent. However, that support and encouragement are both limited and arbitrary. They are limited as the amounts paid by the premier league to football league clubs are greatly exceeded by the amounts that the premier league clubs pay to each other and by the amounts paid for overseas players. Additionally, much of the trickle-down effect is offset by transfer money going back from the football league to the premier league.
  The support and encouragement are arbitrary as the benefits derived by smaller clubs are neither targeted at need nor reflect the true costs of developing young players. When Les Ferdinand joined Tottenham Hotspur from Newcastle United, in 1997, his first club, Hayes—I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) in the Chamber—received £800,000 under a sell-on clause. Hayes did well and invested its wind 'all in a new stadium. However, that example is not typical. Many struggling clubs receive next to nothing for players whom they have developed. We would like to see a system in which clubs are fairly recompensed for identifying and bringing on talent.
  I am glad to say that the football authorities themselves recognise that the current system is not perfect. However, the sport recognises as we do that the current transfer framework is the best known means of achieving the benefits that we seek.
  The Government are therefore helping football to work towards a new system that will be acceptable to the Commission while retaining the beneficial effects of the current arrangements. Under the proposals put to the Commission by the joint FIFA-UEFA task force, on 31 October, clubs developing players will be guaranteed a fair level of recompense for losing promising talent.
  Support for smaller clubs, however, forms only one part of the negotiations. Many observers are more concerned by the suggestion that players should be able to break contracts if their teams are relegated, if they are not selected for matches or if they disagree on tactics. That proposal came from FIFA, but has now been withdrawn. The Government share football's concern about the possible effects of that proposal on the stability of domestic and international competitions.

  905
  We have made plain our concerns to football, but it is right that all sports should run themselves and it is for the football authorities to reform their transfer system. The Government's proper role is to help that process and to ensure that the interests of all part; of the sport are fully considered by the sport's international governing bodies and by the Commission.
  To that end, we have had three roles in the negotiations. First, through the United Kingdom football authorities we have actively encouraged the FIFA-UEFA working group to come up with sensible proposals that meet some of the Commission's concerns while achieving a solution that meets the needs of the whole sport It is well known that the international governing bodies were for a time unable to agree a common approach. After a couple of weeks of uncertainty, the Commission is once again discussing the 31 October proposals with the taskforce, starting with a meeting tomorrow. The Government are receiving regular reports of the progress of the negotiations, and we shall continue to offer every possible assistance through our national football authorities.
  Secondly, we have sought to encourage football to speak with one voice. The Football Association and the premier league are taking the lead in negotiations. The Scottish FA has been kept fully info med of developments and is represented at the regular UEFA Euro leagues meeting. My Department has also remained in close touch with the other devolved Administrations on the issue.
  Thirdly, we have tried to ensure that the Commission acknowledges the special characteristics of sport. That was the aim of the declaration on sport, which the Government fully supported, at the Nice summit. The declaration expressed the belief of European Union states that sport is different from other industries, and that the Commission should take account of that, not least when considering the transfer issue. The Nice declaration included a specific paragraph on that issue. That shows how seriously Governments in the European Union are taking the issue. We are confident that the Commission has taken account of that message as negotiations have continued.
  We have remained close to the issue, and have offered every assistance to football when appropriate and potentially productive. UEFA and FIFA will pick up the negotiations with the Commission again, and I believe that there are grounds for cautious optimism.
  It is entirely possible that we will and up with a transfer system that, although rather different from the present arrangements, has some significant advantages over current practice.
  Mr. Bob Russell: In view of the serious points that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) made in his powerful speech, would the Government intervene if there was a possibility of smaller clubs going to the wall?
  Kate Hoey: The Government already intervene—in a way in which a Government who do not run the sport can do that. We are being as supportive and helpful as possible. We are also working with our European partners, who share our anxiety. Their football bodies have different views, but most agree that the Commission's initial proposals were not acceptable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood and other hon. Members will remember the anxieties about the Bosman ruling. Contrary to fears expressed at the time, it did not destroy football. Although the ruling appears to have helped to usher in the present wage spiral for top footballers, much of that is down to the huge amounts of television money. The inflationary transfer market has been encouraged by agents who stand to make vast amounts of money from television. The football governing bodies pay great attention to the Commission's actions, but they and FIFA must do more to stop the clear abuses of the system by agents. All the factors that I have mentioned combine to shift the power in football from the grass roots upwards, as my hon. Friend said.
  The ability to change clubs without a fee when out of contract, which the Bosman ruling granted, has sometimes been to the advantage of many players. Stuart Pearce's current renaissance at West Ham is arguably a demonstration of that. A fee may well have dissuaded his new club from rescuing him from Newcastle United's reserve team.
  We hope that the Commission's review will have a satisfactory outcome, and that the flexibility that football has long shown will enable it to adapt to any new conditions. I can assure hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood, that the Government will continue to help football to work towards a successful conclusion to the present negotiations.
  I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House's attention. It is clear that hon. Members from all parties believe that, whatever the ultimate system, it must protect the small clubs, safeguard talent and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, encourage home-grown talent. That is the future of our football.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Aviation Policy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Mullin.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) addresses us, let me make the point that, as there is excessive heating in the Room, I am prepared to relax the normal rule on dress. Jackets need not continue to be worn if Members feel uncomfortable.
9.30 am
Mr. Tony Colman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. We will have read in the newspapers today about the advance of global warming; it has certainly arrived in Westminster Hall.
Thank you also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for agreeing to this Adjournment debate on aviation policy. This is the first opportunity that hon. Members have had to express their views in the Chamber on the Government consultation paper "The Future of Aviation", which was launched outside the House on 12 December 2000.
I thank those who have helped me to prepare for this debate. The views now expressed are mine alone, but I hope that they are shared by many Putney residents and other Members of Parliament. I have already passed a copy of my speech to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), so I hope that he will be able to respond to my questions and comments.
The consultation document is comprehensive, and I commend two of the Government's proposals in particular: first, the polluter pays principle has been applied to the aviation industry; secondly, the Government are advocating the taxation of aviation fuel on an EU-wide basis. The Minister may be able to bring the Chamber up to date on the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal last week. The United States rejected the EU proposal for such a tax in September. Has it now been agreed and, if not, will the EU decide to go it alone?
The need for action on pollution, especially on emissions from aircraft, was made even more urgent by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, announced in Shanghai, China yesterday, which stated that the panel's previous reports had gravely underestimated the extent to which the world may heat up. It calculates that that could now happen almost twice as fast, with a rise of 5.8 deg C by the end of this century. It is the first report to conclude unequivocally that global warming is taking place and that pollution is to blame.
184WH
In my Adjournment debate on 21 March last year, I drew attention to the culpability of the aviation industry and to the need for action by Governments, airlines, aircraft manufacturers and airports. The call by Mike Hodgkinson of BAA plc for a sustainable aviation forum should be heeded. Perhaps the Minister can state whether he will set up such a forum, with all of the stakeholders involved? On what basis could that be done and when? What success did my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have in ensuring that aircraft emissions were discussed and incorporated at the sixth conference of parties to the Kyoto protocol, at The Hague in November 2000 and subsequently? If that has not been achieved, will the Minister confirm that such incorporation remains UK and EU aviation and environmental policy?
The other pollutant from the aviation industry is, of course, noise. I welcome the Government's decision, announced last month, to impose lower noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—and cut by half the number of night flights over Putney. Those changes start to recognise the concern of our constituents who live under flight paths about the impact of noise on their daily lives—and even, as research has clearly shown, on the learning ability of their children.
However, the situation remains unacceptable for my constituents and, I am sure, many others. I have tried, as the Minister knows, to remove all night flights from Heathrow. The current regime of 16 flights runs out in 2003, and I hope that a night flight ban can be imposed. I took that matter up in debates on 28 October 1997 and 10 March 1999. I hope to take it up again in the new Parliament, if I am re-elected, well in time for a ban in 2003. In the meantime, the airlines concerned have agreed a ban on flights before 4.30 am and I am persuading them to move to a curfew before 5 am. I have yet to find a single flight that cannot be moved to an arrival after 6 am.
It has been said that if the Government agree to terminal 5, a condition could be that a ban on night flights could take place. Mr. David Radcliffe of the Putney Society states this week in the Wandsworth Borough News:
Voters in Putney who suffer from aircraft noise, who extend well beyond the boundaries of the Putney Society's 1300 members need firm guarantees (from our MP) that if the Government gives T5 the go ahead after the election, it will implement a night ban within a reasonable period afterwards. Nothing less will do.
Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend mentioned the prospect of terminal 5. Does he, like me, find that the timing of the consultation paper is rather odd, as it is too late to influence the conclusions on terminal 5 and too early to reflect the findings of the inquiry?
Mr. Colman: I agree with those sentiments entirely. That is one reason why I called for an aviation policy debate today. It is a source of great regret that the White Paper did not come out earlier; I shall deal with issues to do with terminal 5 later.
To return to night flights, I agree that nothing less than a ban will do for the people of Putney. However, I do not wish to see or hear of such a ban coming as a result of terminal 5: there should be a ban anyway. Any

185WH
day now, the European Court of Human Rights is due to pronounce on the case of Ruth Hutton et al v. the United Kingdom Government on the human right of an individual to have a good night's sleep. Conjoined with Ruth Hutton are Tony Anderson, Richard Bird, John Cavalla, Philippa Edmunds, John Hartley, Peter Thake and Jeff Thomas, all of whom I praise for their initiative and purpose. The case started in 1994 and the court decided in 2000 that the UK Government had a case to answer. I regret that the Minister has not accepted the justice of the case. There is a Europe-wide swell of opposition to night flights, and the European Parliament has twice supported a ban. Will the Minister call a meeting of his EU counterparts to establish one? I intend to take a UK delegation to meet the Swedish ambassador to see whether such a ban could be advanced during the Swedish presidency of the EU.
On page 44, paragraph 157, the consultation document states:
The Government has funded two new research studies on the adverse effects of nighttime noise. They include a trial study on objective measurement of sleep disturbance in the home under controlled conditions, and a public attitude survey of people's perceptions of the effects of aircraft noise at night. We expect to publish both studies very soon.
Given the fact that the document was issued on 12 December, would the Minister give an indication of what date is signified by "soon"? Was he disappointed that the ICAO meeting in Montreal on 17 January only agreed a new noise standard 10 decibels lower than the current chapter 3 standards, which will become effective only in January 2006, rather than the minus-14 target advocated by the Airport Operators Association? Does he agree with Keith Jowett, chief executive of that association? He said:
As air traffic levels continue to increase, every effort must be made to limit the nuisances caused to people by aircraft noise. That's why we see quieter aircraft as vital to the future of air transport in the UK.
Yesterday, The Times reported:
BAA, which owns Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, had been pushing for the 14-decibel reduction; without it they feared expansion plans would be jeopardised by local objections.
Airlines, which faced a £100 billion bill to make aircraft comply with the tougher limit, expressed delight at the announcement.
The new limits are planned for 2006. New aircraft can be phased in to meet the 14 decibel reduction and more without large bills to the airlines or the ultimate payers—the passengers.
The last study on noise impact around Heathrow was in 1982. Very close to the airport, noise from each aircraft may be better, but the approaches to Heathrow that now cover practically the whole of London—and particularly the dreadful noise-polluted stretch from Putney and Fulham through Richmond and Barnes to Hounslow—have had an increase in noise, as the rising tide of complaints clearly shows. Will the Minister commit himself to renewing and reviewing the LEQ index and monitoring around Heathrow and its approaches to ensure that updated figures can be made available on an unbiased basis?
186WH
The consultation document is light on the other aspects of aviation that impact on noise. My constituents, for example, suffer badly from flights in and out of Battersea heliport. The flight path is along the Thames as far as Barnes and duplicates, at even lower levels, the Heathrow flight path over Putney. A much more convenient location than Battersea for London's heliport should be proposed, preferably outside London and with a high-speed public transport link. There is also no discussion in the document of airships, which can have great lifting capability, are silent and do not require long glide paths prior to landing. I believe that the new, safe gases could be used for them. Could the Minister look into why helicopters, heliports and the use of airships have been largely discounted in the consultation document?
Current trends in air travel have been plotted in the consultation document, but no one has contradicted Nick Nuttall, the environment correspondent of The Times, who wrote last June:
The government is facing a political timebomb as official projections show that Britain needs four more airports the size of Heathrow if it is to meet air travel growth over the next 20 years. Experts claim that the figures have put ministers on a collision course with councils, residents and "green groups". Statistics show that the number of passengers at British airports was 160 million in 1998. Forecasts produced for the DETR say this will have climbed to between 401 million and 404 million by 2020.
The mainstream forecast is that the number of passengers using London-area airports will increase from 109 million passengers per annum in 2000, to 250 million in 2020, and to 320 million by 2030.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be aware that, because of those projections, some people in the south-east business community have advocated that RAF Northolt be developed as another terminal for Heathrow. Does he recognise the concern that that suggestion has created among my constituents? Does he agree that the proposal should be flown into the dustbin of history and parked there?
Mr. Colman: I totally agree with that comment. I also believe that the Prime Minister's commitment not to proceed with such a proposal should assure my hon. Friend's electors that there is no commitment in any shape or form on a sixth-terminal development at RAF Northolt.
I have outlined the forecast for huge growth in the number of passengers using London-area airports. One question is whether such growth is in the interests of the United Kingdom economy. The industry-funded report by Oxford Economic Forecasting, entitled "The contribution of the Aviation Industry to the Economy", makes no mention of environmental and social costs, the lack of contribution in VAT or fuel tax, or the cost of each aviation job to the economy. I support the view of John Stewart, of the Heathrow Action Committee Against Noise, that there should be a move to a demand-management strategy along the lines of that being proposed for the rest of the European Union, rather than the predict and provide approach of the Tory years.
Even with modest growth, there is a need for expansion to the north and east of London. The Deputy Mayor of London, Nicky Gavron, has made plain her

187WH
support for such expansion. She points out the benefits to the Lee Valley regeneration corridor of expansion of Stansted airport. However, she says:
London has no major airport to the east—only London City, which is constrained in the size and number of aircraft it can take. Yet it is to the east that London and its surrounding regions have the huge opportunities for development in Thames Gateway.
A little verse from the 1970s sums up the issue nicely:
Put your airports out to sea
Where the real estate is free
And where they're far away from me.
Nicky Gavron continues:
If we are going to plan, monitor and manage air transport long term, we have to look east to a "super airport" coming on stream after 2020. The only options for that super airport are estuarial, or further out, land reclaimed from the North Sea—for example, Maplin Sands…
She also remarks:
It is a fact of life that indefinite expansion of London's existing airports is technically and politically impossible.
That brings me to my key point, which hon. Members have already mentioned in interventions—the planning application for terminal 5. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the inspector's report is with the Deputy Prime Minister, and say when he expects a decision to be announced. Although I realise that the usual time for consideration of such a report is at least six months, if not a year—which has been my experience with similar planning applications—in this case, it is important that we have a decision before a general election to avoid the charge that a decision was delayed for political reasons.
I was disappointed to learn that the Mayor of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—I have informed him that I would be making this point—has decided to be silent on the issue. In chapter 41.8 of the document "Improving London's Transport System: London's International Link", he states:
The Mayor has no role in determining the Heathrow Terminal 5 decision.
He goes on to say that, if T5 goes ahead, certain conditions should be met; and I agree. However, it amazes me that, on perhaps the most important planning issue before Londoners today, the Mayor believes that he has no role. I suggest that leaders of London local authorities such as my own Wandsworth council should call on the Mayor to state where he stands on the issue. The planning inquiry has clearly finished, but no decision has yet been made. I want to know where the Mayor of London stands on the issue and I call on him to come off the fence. I agree with the Mayor on many public transport issues, but I cannot understand why he is unwilling to provide a lead on the issue.
If I may unequivocally state on which side of the fence I stand, I oppose terminal 5. I do not believe that any of the conditions on terminal 5 can control major expansion of the airport in the future. The fact is that—as I have made clear to BAA and to the planning inquiry inspector again and again in the past five years—existing terminals can be redeveloped to deal with larger aircraft. The last thing that London wants is another mega-shopping centre, but that seems to be the only justification in terms of airport capacity for T5.
188WH
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine, is unable to attend this debate, but she asked me to register her opposition to terminal 5.
My last point concerns the accountability of the aviation industry to the public. I welcome the proposal for a statutory consumer body for air transport. Currently, the Air Transport Users Council represents the views of air travellers and is financed by the airlines through the CAA. Any new body should ensure that the consumer's voice is heard across the full range of aviation policy, not simply on matters concerning passenger rights.
Health issues have suddenly come to the fore—particularly concerns about deep vein thrombosis. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for their work on those issues. However, before hon. Members conclude that dealing with the concerns is merely a matter of spreading out the economy seats, I should point out that a report in Saturday's Financial Times stated that the chief executive officer of J. Walter Thompson—one of the world's biggest advertising agencies—has quit at the age of 45 after being stricken by DVT, and certainly not travelling in economy class. The article states:
He was hit by deep vein thrombosis on his way to a client meeting with Nestle in Switzerland last spring. After he had disembarked from the aircraft, his leg started to swell and Nestle summoned medical help.
Mr. Jones was rushed to hospital by ambulance and underwent emergency surgery. Afterwards, JWT said, doctors told him he had been lucky to escape with his life.
I was pleased to read the Minister's comment, in reply to last week's Adjournment debate, that
If it emerges that regulation on health grounds is necessary, we will not hesitate to act.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 January 2001: Vol. 361, c. 28WH.]
Yesterday, on the "Today" programme, Professor John Whitely of Liverpool John Moore university and Transport 2000 was interviewed about a new study of US airports, particularly Chicago and Seattle, and the increased rate of cancer registered among those living near airports. Apparently no such epidemiological survey has been carried out in the UK, and Professor Whitely was calling for one. Could the Minister add that concern to the list?
Will my hon. Friend confirm reports that he will be meeting the airlines for an aviation summit, on 20 February, to discuss EU regulations that would also force operators to publish figures on punctuality, cancellations and—more important—complaints? Would he support the publication of league tables on customer complaints—as is done by the US Department of Transport following an aviation summit held by ex-President Clinton in January 2000, when all airlines operating in the US agreed to provide such information?
The consultation on aviation policy—the first since the 1985 White Paper—is to be welcomed. It could be comprehensive. I welcome its support of the polluter pays principle and its emphasis on taking into account the environmental and social costs of aviation. Emission and noise pollution must be dealt with. I look forward to a total ban on night flights for UK airports and—with residents' pressure—across Europe. I hope that the new Swedish presidency will take on the issue.

189WH
I am appalled that the decision on terminal 5 is to be taken without reference to the issues raised in the consultation paper and without waiting for the White Paper. I am also amazed that the Mayor of London has decided not to become involved in the most important planning decision in London. I also support the moves, outlined in the consultation, for a consumers' voice in aviation policy, and for action on the health issues that must worry all air travellers. I have been told time and again when preparing for this debate that I must realise how important the aviation industry is to UK plc. However, any industry must convince the public that it should have a licence to operate. We cannot simply say that anything goes if it ensures competitiveness with the rest of the world. Those were the arguments that were used against the minimum wage and the abolition of child labour.
One airline representative told me that he was disappointed with the consultation paper because it concentrated on what he called consumer issues. He felt that those issues were already being dealt with by EU Transport Commissioner Mrs. de Palacio, and he wanted to know why the UK Government did not deal in their consultation paper with what he believed to be the real issue: options for capacity, such as an additional runway for Heathrow. He implied that the most important question was how to continue future expansion unchecked. For him, the issue at Heathrow was not terminal 5, which was going to happen anyway, but an additional runway to enable use of the additional airport capacity that terminal 5 would provide. Of course, that runs totally in the face of the evidence given to the T5 inquiry.
There is a perception that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and, more precisely, the transport department, bend over backwards to satisfy the airline industry and do not listen to the needs of the electorate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has shown in his time in his current role that he is willing to listen and act. I look forward to seeing him ban night flights, refuse permission for terminal 5 and ensure that aviation policy for the future takes account primarily of the views of the people as a whole and not simply of aviation industry aggrandisement.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I admire my hon. Friend for representing his constituents' views, but does not UK aviation policy mean policy throughout the country?
Mr. Colman: I agree with my hon. Friend, but one of the issues at Heathrow is the grandfather rights of particular airlines on the slots that they can use there. Many of the regional airlines are desperate to access Heathrow. Any review of airport landing slots should ensure that regional airlines can access the capital. The value attached to the slots is unhelpful in terms of ensuring that the industry works for the interests of consumers throughout the country, rather than for its own aggrandisement.
Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend makes valuable points about the economic contribution of the aviation
190WH
industry. We know that two thirds of all flights depart from the south-east, and that three quarters of all airport and airline jobs are based there. Does he acknowledge that far tighter regimes should be established in regional airports before any expansion is exported to them? Should not they learn in some way from the regimes at Heathrow and elsewhere?
Mr. Colman: I am sure that other hon. Members will want to put the case for areas outside the south-east. I feel strongly that the overheated economy in west London and the overbearing noise and pollution to which I have referred are such that a cap should be placed on development at Heathrow. We should move away from the predict and provide method and towards a more sane situation, especially given the information on global warming that has been revealed in the past 24 hours. For the first time, we have been shown that the Tory way of rushing willy-nilly into development for the sake of airlines rather than of the consumers or the electorate, and into unbridled development in the south-east, should be challenged.
I have taken two interventions at the end of my speech and I now want to give other hon. Members time to participate.
9.54 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on initiating a debate that is timely both in terms of the consultation paper published just before Christmas and in terms of my constituents' interests. Of course the hon. Gentleman did not know that the latter were involved. I apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of his speech, but I think I have got the thrust of it from listening to the interventions and to the substantial part of his comments.
It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I do not want to speak about Heathrow. I should like to mention two other issues: first, the environmental impact of growth in air traffic; and, secondly, the proposal for a regional airport in my constituency—indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred at the end of his speech to the regional aspects of aviation policy.
It is a pity that aviation is currently outside the Kyoto protocol. We know about the environmental effect of aviation in terms of fuel use, growth and especially freight traffic. Kiwi fruit and all sorts of exotic vegetables are flown in at various times of the year. Such products are often cheaper than those produced here, partly because there is no tax on aviation fuel. We are facing a 70 per cent. growth in freight traffic. Furthermore, it is estimated that fuel use will increase by 3 per cent. a year for the next 15 years. That will lead to an increase in aviation emissions of at least 75 per cent. by 2015, despite improvements in fuel efficiency.
The hon. Member for Putney referred to the American report—I think that it was made public yesterday—that makes a link between cancer and fuel use and storage, with special reference to the carcinogenic substances benzine and toluline. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have no way of saying whether the same is happening in this country, as we have no studies on the matter. We must, however, consider human and public health as well as the environmental impact of aviation growth.

191WH
On 31 October, when the Deputy Prime Minister had just released a report on flooding, I asked him about aviation fuel tax. In reply, he said that
we need a global agreement and a global solution.
I think that we agree on that. The right hon. Gentleman added:
we are pressing the case very hard.—[Official Report, 31 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 622.]
I have had only a brief opportunity to read the consultation paper on the future of aviation, but I cannot see in it any suggestion that the Government are pressing hard on the question of aviation fuel tax. It is mentioned as an optional way forward for controlling the growth in air freight and traffic, but it is not identified as a Government priority or objective. Will the Under-Secretary make it his priority objective for the Government to adopt the international proposal to agree on some form of aviation tax? Allowing the consumption of such a huge amount of fossil fuels to be outside the Kyoto agreement is remiss in modern society and should be addressed.
If aviation tax were introduced and the cost of flights were similar to that of other forms of transport—or at least on an level playing field with them—the growth being experienced by the south-east in particular might be limited and more realistic. Such a tax is not by any means an answer to all the problems, but surely the noise and environmental and social impacts of the growth of air traffic should be paid for in some way by those who use aircraft. That means the operators themselves and also passengers. It is currently much cheaper for me to fly to Dublin from Wales than to travel to London or Cardiff. Clearly there is a strange relationship clearly in that respect.
Of course I have to go to Cardiff to get the flight to Dublin, which brings me to my next point: the proposal to develop a regional airport in my constituency, at what is now the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency base in Aberporth. DERA has been privatised and the Under-Secretary has no responsibility for these matters. However, there are one or two related issues for which he may be responsible. The change from military to civilian use means that the airport in Aberporth has to meet Civil Aviation Authority guidelines. That means a larger runway. Consequently, according to planning proposals that are currently before the local authority, the airport will become a class 2 airport. That means that it will be the second largest airport in Wales after Cardiff Wales, which is our main regional airport.
Any hon. Members who have visited Aberporth or Cardigan or that area of the west Wales coast may think it somewhat strange that there is a need for a regional airport where there is no major centre of population. However, there is a proposal, which is linked with DERA, for a technology park. The idea is that the regional airport and the technology park will work together in a cluster development. That is an interesting and exciting proposal. However, my constituents have raised one or two questions.
First, it is clear that there will be a policy on regional airports. The consultation document states that a series of regional airport studies will be made. Will there be a separate study for Wales, or one study for Cardiff Wales airport? How will the proposal for Aberporth fit in with the putative regional airport studies?
192WH
The flight path is the second aspect that worries my constituents. As the Ministry of Defence range will continue to exist down to the sea, flying in over the sea will not be a feasible or safe approach. That means that the main approach will be over land. I echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Putney about noise and night flights.
I ask the Minister and hon. Members to consider carefully how we can encourage regional airport growth when 80 per cent. of the traffic that flies into Gatwick and Heathrow is destined for the south-east. It is not easily transferred elsewhere. That is a difficult consideration. If a regional airport is to be developed in Aberporth, we will have to create a completely new market. It could not compete with Cardiff Wales airport because it is two hours away.
Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech on behalf of his constituents. Does he acknowledge that Cardiff Wales international airport has a much greater capacity than is being used? Only 1.5 million passengers a year go through the airport, but it has the capacity to accommodate 4 million. The real challenge is to improve surface access to regional airports. I am pleased that the Welsh Assembly is doing that—indeed, it has announced the opening of a railway line which could connect directly to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. Thomas: I strongly support the rail link, although I am not so enamoured of the road link that some people advocated. I accept that Cardiff Wales is capable of expansion to meet the needs of the whole of Wales, not only south-east Wales. That is analogous to the pattern in England.
I ask the Minister to produce the regional airport studies as soon as possible so that we can ascertain the way in which the proposal for Aberporth fits into the bigger picture, how Cardiff Wales airport can develop for the benefit of the whole of the Welsh economy and how my constituents can be assured that they will not have to tolerate the jumbo and Concorde flights which they assume will come as a result of the development of the regional airport.
Regional airports are different from airports of the kind to which the hon. Member for Putney referred, but they have an environmental and social impact none the less. It is important that Government documents take that into account. I welcome the consultation paper and the Government's moves. I hope that the debate will assist the Government in including even more environmental considerations in their consultations.
10.3 am
Mr. Paul Goggins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this important debate. I was interested to hear about the legal action on the human right to a good night's sleep. If it is successful, we look forward to its extension to Members of Parliament.
I want to make a few comments about the role of regional airports, especially Manchester airport. As hon. Members know, passengers regularly vote for Manchester as one of the best airports in the world. Last year, it handled 19 million passengers—1 million more

193WH
than the previous year. Some 85,000 full-time equivalent jobs, mostly in the north-west, depend on Manchester airport; 19,000 of those people work at the airport.
Manchester airport has three terminals. In the next few weeks, its second runway will open. That will give it the capacity to handle 40 million passengers a year. The airport aspires to handle that number by 2015. However, the existing pattern of the United Kingdom aviation industry is fixated on London and the south-east. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, two thirds of all UK air travel originates from the three London airports.
If Denmark, which has a smaller gross national product than the Manchester catchment area, can have an international hub airport at Copenhagen, and if Milan and Frankfurt, as regional capitals, can also have such airports, why not Manchester? There are two barriers: the first is the cultural mindset in the UK, which prioritises the interests of London and the south-east over those of other regions, and the second is the system of negotiating air service agreements, especially between the UK and the United States, which always places a higher priority on the scarce slots at Heathrow and Gatwick than on the spare capacity in our regional airports.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (in the Chair): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I know that another hon. Member is anxious to speak, and the Minister will have to rise at 10.15 am to reply to the debate. I should be grateful for brief speeches.
Mr. Goggins: Thank you, Mr. Sayeed. I will be brief.
I applaud British Midland's commercial decision to open new transatlantic routes from Manchester. However, we will ultimately need a fully liberalised system of air service agreements, which puts the consumer's interest first.
Mr. Donohoe: My hon. Friend mentions British Midland. He knows that it has applied to run the service not only from Manchester but from Heathrow.
Mr. Goggins: Indeed. I believe that that can be a win-win situation. It is a significant development for business at Manchester airport.
Mr. David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Goggins: I am reluctant to do so because I have been given a fair warning that I need to be brief. I have only a few more comments to make.
Those who disagree with full liberalisation say, with some logic, that there is a danger of the UK giving something for nothing. I fear that the consequences of not liberalising are that international passengers will go not via London but via other European hub airports such as Paris and Amsterdam. A third of all transatlantic passengers who start their journeys in the north-west already travel via a European hub airport rather than via London. The answer to the capacity problem is to increase regional capacity, and especially to develop Manchester as an international hub airport.
194WH
I want to ask the Minister to deal with a specific, urgent point about Manchester in his winding-up speech. The aviation consultation document includes a section on integrated transport and deals with the need for airports to develop as transport hubs. As part of the planning agreement for the second runway at Manchester airport, there is a commitment to ensure that 25 per cent. of all passengers travel to the airport by public transport by 2005. That aspiration has been supported enormously by the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement last year of the development of the Metrolink system, which will reach Manchester airport.
There are ambitious plans to develop a ground transport interchange at Manchester, which will co-ordinate the trams, buses, coaches and trains. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority has backed the scheme and work is due to begin in March. So far, the expected contribution from Railtrack—between £9 million and £13 million has not been forthcoming. Given the urgency of the circumstances—the work needs to begin in March—I ask the Minister to respond to the point, and more important, to pursue it vigorously with Railtrack so that it makes a speedy public commitment to providing its full and proper contribution to the important project.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (in the Chair): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his help. I call Mr. John McDonnell.
10.9 am
Mr. John McDonnell: I welcome this timely debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing it.
The debate is timely because of the publication of the White Paper and because of the delivery to the Deputy Prime Minister of the inspectors' report on terminal 5. Heathrow is in my constituency, so I naturally take a great interest in the matter. Heathrow has made my constituency a logistical centre not only for the south-east and for the rest of the country, but for Europe.
There is a definite need for a new policy approach. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper, which states that there is a need for a long-term framework to ensure that we maximise the beneficial effects of the aviation industry and minimise the negative effects. I agree that that needs to be a long-term strategy over 30 years, and I look forward to the publication of the regional consultation papers, because there has to be a genuinely national policy that takes into account the impact on the regions.
The decision on terminal 5 will be the defining moment for the Government in determining whether they are truly pursuing a national policy based on sustainability. It will be a genuine test of whether they are going to break with the policy of demand-led decision making. Over the past half-century, there has been an incremental expansion of airports without control by central Government. However, we now have the opportunity to take a planned approach, and Heathrow will provide the best example of how we can tackle the unrestrained free-market airport expansion of the past.
Heathrow has developed over the past 70 years from a row of tents in the subterfuge of the second world war into a military base, and then into a major airport for the

195WH
country. There have been pretences of Government planning, but we have also been faced with Government cowardice in the past, and no attempt has been made to control the expansion of Heathrow in a way that benefited not only the local community and London but the country as a whole. There was no real discussion about an integrated transport strategy for Heathrow until this Government arrived on the scene to insist on that debate taking place.
I attended the terminal 4 inquiry, which forced the Government of the time to recognise that there had to be some form of control over Heathrow. A decision was made at that inquiry on a potential terminal 5. Mr. Justice Glidewell made it clear at that time that there should be no further expansion of Heathrow. Unfortunately, six years later, the Government of the day tore up the agreement. There has been a doubling of air traffic movements since then: hence the demand for terminal 5.
If the terminal 5 project goes ahead, it will inevitably mean a third runway. Terminal 5 would involve a virtual doubling of the airport's capacity. It would not be just one more terminal. It would introduce a new airport the size of Paris Charles de Gaulle into the area. Even in BAA's own terms, that would increase noise pollution by 50 per cent. It would increase environmental pollution in my area, which would add to the tragic cases of respiratory disease, from which my constituents already suffer. The report published yesterday demonstrated the carcinogenic effects of airports on local communities. That is a serious matter which must be investigated urgently.
If we build terminal 5, there will be a third runway. To my constituents, that would mean the loss of 1,100 houses in three villages, and the desecration of some of the most rural areas of west London. British Airways is already buying up land. It has made two public statements over the past year calling for a third runway as a result of terminal 5. It has such confidence that it has the Government in its pocket that it believes that the terminal 5 decision has already been made. We need to achieve a genuinely sustainable aviation policy for the country, starting with Heathrow and with a commitment to the development of a regional airport strategy.
The chief executive of BAA made a major speech in which he invited us all—environmentalists, politicians and the aviation industry—to work together. I agree. The start of that collaboration could be BAA's announcement that it no longer requires terminal 5, and that it will bring into line the aviation industry overall. From my constituency's point of view, that collaboration could also start with BAA and its partners, including Railtrack, building the Hayes hub for rail transport into Heathrow, which they have been promising to do for five years.
There is a duty on the Government to recognise that we have to set environmental limits on airports. The White Paper contains that idea as a suggestion. Setting in advance the environmental limits to the expansion of airports would give confidence to the communities living near them. Those limits in terms of noise, pollution and transport problems in the area, should not be exceeded. In that way, we would inspire confidence
196WH
that the Government were tackling the unrestrained growth of airports by introducing a national policy for the benefit of the whole country.
I agree with the proposals on the need to put pressure for technological advance on the industry, and tax incentives would be an important way of achieving that aim. We must tax the polluters. We should lead the world in ensuring that we gain the international agreements that we would require to do that. In that way, the Government could lead the way in tackling the key environmental issues that are having such an effect on the ozone layer and on global warming.
10.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) raised some important issues, and I commend the intelligent interest that he has taken in aviation policy over a long period. He has been a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents' interests in relation to noise and night flights. He and I have had a number of interesting discussions on those subjects, and I look forward to more in the future.
The debate has provided a good illustration of the competing pressures involved. Some hon. Members spoke about the national interest, and about wanting to expand their local airport, while others rightly drew attention to the effect of environmental pressures on the lives of their constituents who live close to an airport. National interests have to be reconciled with local and environmental interests.
The contradiction that I have just mentioned is reflected in all our constituencies, including Putney, Richmond, and Hayes and Harlington. I imagine that the constituents of those areas make as much use of airports, if not more, as my constituents or others who live further away. Some people demand greater access to air travel and an end to delays, while others are rightly concerned about the environmental aspects. Sometimes, the same people have all those concerns. That is one of the difficulties with which politicians have to grapple.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) mentioned the development of regional airports, particularly Manchester. That is part of the Government's strategy. One way of relieving the undoubted pressure on airports in the south-east is to develop regional airports, and we are encouraging that. My hon. Friend also mentioned our desire to encourage the use of public transport in getting to and from airports. I welcome the progress that has been made so far on that, but in my view there is still considerably more to be done, in terms not only of passengers but of those who work at airports, the overwhelming majority of whom, I notice, travel by car to their place of work. My hon. Friend also asked about Railtrack, and I will chase up the point that he raised.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the continued expansion of aviation will pose a major challenge to the Government in the years to come. The Government are well aware of that, which is why we are preparing carefully for the aviation White Paper, which will be published early next year and will set out our policy for the 30 years ahead.
I entirely endorse the suggestion made by my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that demand will have to

197WH
be sensibly managed, and that predict and provide is not the answer. It did not work for roads or for housing, and it will not work for aviation. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Putney been present at the launch of the Oxford Economic Forecasting report—perhaps he was—he would have heard me make precisely that point. Indeed, I make it whenever I am faced with an audience of movers and shakers in the aviation industry, and I believe that many of the key players, certainly the more responsible ones, recognise my argument.
I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and other hon. Members that further expansion must be sustainable. We have made it clear from the outset that aviation should meet its external costs, including environmental ones, and we shall take seriously Mr. Hodgkinson's call for a sustainable aviation forum.
My hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Hayes and Harlington raised a number of issues, and I shall do my best to address them in the time available. They will understand, however, that, for good legal reasons, I am unable to comment on terminal 5 or on the current case involving the European convention on human rights—
Mr. McDonnell: Go on.
Mr. Mullin: Hon. Members know that this issue is crawling with lawyers; it is more than my life is worth to express a view on it now. Nor am I able to comment on the ECHR case—beyond saying the only thing I can say: I note the interesting suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that any go-ahead for terminal 5 should be linked to a ban on night flights.
Mr. Donohoe: Does my hon. Friend understand that, as well as the environmental impact, safety is of paramount importance to Heathrow and the surrounding area, and that the question of who should be awarded the air traffic control contract is therefore a live issue? Does he agree that the best option is the consortium proposal that is before the Government for consideration?
Mr. Mullin: No, that is another area that is crawling with lawyers. My hon. Friend has raised the point at a very late stage and I shall not get involved in it now. A decision will be forthcoming, probably in the next couple of months or so, and then we shall know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned helicopters, which were covered in the consultation paper announced on 12 December. He may like to know that a stricter noise standard was agreed last week at the ICAO. So far as I know, however, there are no plans to relocate Battersea heliport. In any case, that would be a matter for local planning authorities.
My hon. Friend referred to capacity issues. We have been carrying out individual regional studies of air services across the United Kingdom, which examine those and other issues specific to each region. A series of regional consultation documents will be published later this year and those will include an appraisal of the economic, environmental and social impacts. Options in
198WH
the south-east of England are being considered separately. The south-east study, which was announced in March 1999, continues to examine options for the sustainable development of airports and air services in the area over the next 30 years. That is a major exercise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Mullin: Forgive me, but I have only a few minutes left and have to answer rather a lot of questions, to which I shall try to do justice.
We are considering scenarios that incorporate additional capacity and those that do not—nothing has been ruled in or out. As regards the aviation summit on 20 February, which my noble Friend Lord Macdonald and I shall attend, just over a month ago my noble Friend challenged airlines and airports to improve passenger standards in 10 key areas. Those include better information on health issues, prompt information about delays or cancellations and improved complaint procedures, all of which will be discussed on 20 February.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney asked me to bring him up to date on the outcome of the ICAO meeting in Montreal last week. The polluter pays principle is central to our policy. The UK has been arguing strongly—not just last week, but for many years—for better noise and emissions standards. Reducing environmental impacts at source is the most effective way to reduce their impact on people and on the global climate. More recently, we have also been in the lead in arguing at the ICAO for economic incentives for aviation to reduce its impact on climate change.
My hon. Friend referred to the recent confirmation of the global warming temperature effect. We have known for some time that aviation is an important contributor and, although that contribution is relatively small, high growth is forecast. Almost two years ago, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report on aviation—the first such report on an individual sector—with major contributions from the UK. That is one reason why we have argued for action within the ICAO.
Unfortunately, it is not always clear that the Rio principle of polluter pays is shared by all the interests in the ICAO. There are strong national and industrial interests there, just as there are in the climate change discussions themselves, as we saw at The Hague last year. There is very strong resistance among leading states and developing nations to an aviation fuel tax. Without international agreement, the imposition of a tax—perhaps limited to within the EU—would be liable to provoke strong sanctions.
The more forward-looking parts of the industry recognise that some system of charging for emissions, perhaps along the lines proposed in the EU, is inevitable and perhaps a more practicable alternative to a tax. However, we shall not know the final outcome of the ICAO discussions on fuel tax or emissions charges until all the ICAO states meet in the autumn. We shall continue to work with our European partners to ensure that there is action to reduce emissions in the shorter term. It is not enough to look forward to emissions trading, which cannot be implemented quickly, as the answer.

199WH
On noise, there is similar opposition from some Governments and some sections of the industry to any measures—for example, a new standard or phasing out older aircraft—that would impose costs on manufacturers and airlines. Like my hon. Friend, I agree with the chief executive of the Airport Operators Association that quieter aircraft are vital to the future of air transport in the UK. Again, I give some credit to those European airlines that have recognised that they need to reduce the environmental impact, but their voice, I regret to say, was not heard at the ICAO last week.
I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that the proposed new standard is only minus 10. That is not enough to achieve the continuing and long-term noise reductions that we need. Almost all aircraft in production already meet that standard, yet it was doggedly opposed by the industry. We shall certainly continue to argue for a standard that ensures improvements in future designs, especially the workhorse medium-sized aircraft. We also need to phase out the noisiest aircraft, which are often the oldest, including those with hushkits. Although there are relatively few of those operating in the UK, they make a disproportionate contribution to noise impacts.
It was clear from the analysis presented at the ICAO that action on noise is urgently needed at European airports. Arguments that a phase-out would be unreasonably costly were disputed on economic and policy grounds by the UK, by other European countries and by Australia, but without success. We shall have to consider our options in the light of the expected further negotiations involving the ICAO, the European Commission and the United States on action to resolve the current dispute procedure invoked by the United Stats on the hushkits regulation. However, it is clear to me that controlling noise at source through ICAO agreement is at best likely to provide only part of the answer on the reduced noise impact that we need around our airports in the UK.
The second plank in the Government's policy on noise is to maintain and improve the framework within which the noise from aircraft landing and taking off is controlled and its worst effects mitigated. A wide range
200WH
of measures are in place at Heathrow and we have taken steps to improve their effectiveness—hon. Members will probably know about that. On 18 December, I was pleased to announce new lower noise limits and better monitoring arrangements for aircraft departing from all three London airports. We expect that the lower limits will lead to a small but worthwhile reduction in noise.
My hon. Friend touched on the announcement of 21 December, which I was pleased to make, that changes would be made to the use of Heathrow's runways at night. Those will achieve a fairer and more equitable distribution of aircraft movements and noise between midnight and 6 am. Under the current arrangement, approximately 90 per cent. of Heathrow's night flights overfly the densely populated areas of London, including the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Putney. That is a legacy of the westerly preference introduced in the 1960s, which reduces take-offs over London where routes cannot be designed to avoid the main built-up areas. That contrasts with the position to the west.
We consulted extensively on that in two stages over two years and concluded that it makes no sense to continue to operate the westerly preference at night now that there are few or no departures most nights. Instead, there will be a weekly rotation between westerly and easterly operations. I hope that that brings some comfort to the constituents of my hon. Friends, although I appreciate that it is not as much as they would like.
On night flights, in June 1999, the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), announced tough new night restrictions for the London airports. For Heathrow, we reduced the noise quotas by 20 per cent. in summer and 17 per cent. in winter to increase incentives for airlines to use quieter aircraft. The restrictions at Heathrow are more stringent than those at any other major European airport. I regret that I do not have time to deal with all the questions that have been raised, but I look forward to pursuing some of those other matters with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and his colleagues in the near future.

Victims of Crime (Northern Ireland)
10.30 am
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to raise a number of important issues relating to Government funding for victims of crime, especially victims of terrorist violence. It is my opinion, and a widely held opinion in Northern Ireland, that that funding has been inadequate.
There is a clear disparity between the funds provided for groups representing ex-prisoners—ex-paramilitary prisoners, that is—and those provided for groups representing victims of terrorist violence. Ex-prisoners' groups in Northern Ireland have received more than £6 million from the Government and the European Union over the past five years. That is in addition to institutional support given directly to groups representing and including ex-prisoners, in particular by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. It is clear, if we view the position on a like-for-like basis, that over the years more money has been provided for the care, support and resettlement of ex-prisoners than has been provided for the victims of terrorist violence, even though the tragedy of the past 30 years and more of violence in Northern Ireland is that there are more victims than ex-prisoners.
Sadly, South Armagh is one of the areas where a great deal of violence has occurred. To date, the victims' group known as FAIR—Families Acting for Innocent Relatives—has received £102,000 in Government and European funding, while the republican ex-prisoners' group in Crossmaglen, also in South Armagh, has received £166,000. Yet there are many more victims than ex-prisoners in South Armagh.
South Armagh has been the scene of some of the cruellest atrocities of the past 30 years. The date of 5 January this year marked the 25th anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre. Members of the Provisional IRA, using a name of convenience, stopped a minibus, ordered workers returning from the local mill out of the bus, lined them up at the side of the road and massacred 10 of them, all Protestants.
The so-called Darkley massacre also took place in South Armagh. On 20 November 1983, members of the Provisional IRA, again using a name of convenience, entered Mountain Lodge pentecostal church and opened fire on the worshippers, committing murder and mayhem. I could give many other instances of atrocities in South Armagh, which has also been home to some of the most notorious members of the republican terrorist organisations, particularly the Provisional IRA. Commentators have often described it as bandit country. It is sad, indeed appalling, that victims in that area should be given less support than the ex-prisoners who caused much of the suffering of the people of South Armagh.
There is growing disillusionment among victims' groups, and among victims themselves, about the role of the intermediary funding bodies. I am thinking particularly of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, which has a major responsibility for administering funding for victims' groups. It is little wonder that that is so.
202WH
An article published on 25 March 1999 quotes Avila Kilmurray, director of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, as saying, when addressing a conference held to launch a report entitled "The Cost of Imprisonment",
politically motivated ex-POWs
—as she described them—
are at the forefront and actively continuing the struggle.
I wonder what Ms Kilmurray means by "the struggle"—and who are the prisoners of war? I was not aware that the Government had declared ex-prisoners to be ex-prisoners of war. This lady, however, is the director of the intermediary body responsible for funding victims' groups.
Ms Kilmurray went on to speak of the often hidden cost of imprisonment and of the former prisoners who were unable to come to terms with the brutal treatment they received from the "justice" and jail systems. I wonder what she meant by that. I repeat that those are the comments of a person in charge of the provision of funds for victims' groups. How must the victims feel about such remarks? It is little wonder that they have become disillusioned with the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, and the uneven-handed way in which it has approached the issue of funding.
FAIR, which I mentioned earlier, is currently in dispute with the NIVT about funding. FAIR represents a large number of victims in South Armagh. It has given me a copy of its membership list, comprising well over 300 victims in the area. Do not those people deserve a proper share of the funds? Their share contrasts with the generous amounts given to ex-prisoners' groups. Victims' groups feel, rightly in my view, that they are not being treated with parity of esteem, and that there is a lack of understanding of their situation.
Groups established by republican activists, including the families of so-called IRA volunteers who were killed by the security forces, are now masquerading as victims, and attracting funding away from legitimate victims' groups. They include the families of IRA activists shot dead by security forces during an attack on Loughgall RUC station. Provisional IRA members who engaged in an action that meant murder and destruction are nevertheless seeking funds from the Government as victims. There is also evidence that ex-prisoners' groups are using their funding for party-political purposes.
An umbrella group established by republican ex-prisoners' groups has attracted funding from the European special support programme for peace and reconciliation, administered by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. The organisation represents republican ex-prisoners groups who employ 50 full-time workers. It states that its objectives include helping ex-prisoners with freedom of movement and pursuing the arguments in favour of the need for an amnesty for those convicted as a result of the conflict. Such groups are being funded to pursue political agendas. That money could be going to the victims instead.
I welcome the recent publication of the report by John Steele on the establishment of a new police fund. That is a welcome development and a long-overdue recognition of the need to provide support to the families of RUC officers who have made a huge sacrifice in protecting the people of Northern Ireland. Many of the recommendations in the Steele report are commendable. However, I have a number of concerns that I want to put to the Minister.

203WH
The Minister will be aware that John Steele proposed to pay a one-off lump sum to the pre-1982 RUC widows who have had a particularly difficult time financially because of the differential between their compensatory payments and those made to RUC widows post-1982. John Steele describes the proposals to provide the equivalent of £1,000 for each year of widowhood up to the date of the commencement of the new police fund as
a token of the state's concern for the plight of these widows.
I urge the Minister to look again at the proposal because we need to provide more than a token. Those widows are looking for proper and adequate compensation for the significant differential between their financial position and those of the post-1982 widows. The proposal in the Steele report for the one-off payment does not adequately compensate those widows.
Having discussed the matter with the group representing these RUC widows, I know that they object to the proposal for a means-tested fund. These ladies are proud and courageous. They have struggled for many years to bring up their families, in the absence of a husband and breadwinner, in difficult financial circumstances. It is sad that they have to apply to a means-tested fund for support. I urge the Minister to look at this matter again.
I urge the Minister and the Government to intervene on the tax liability for those widows in respect of the one-off payments. It would significantly undermine the value of the payments if they were to be taxable, and I hope that the Government's generosity will extend to a commitment to make the payments tax-free.
The new police fund should also give priority consideration to other police families whose circumstances are slightly different from the pre-1982 widows, but who have suffered due to the loss of a loved one who was murdered while serving with the RUC or as a result of their past service with the RUC. I want to give two examples to the Minister so that he can understand the point.
Recently, I received a letter from Ann Dougherty, who lives in Omagh. Her father, constable Andrew Alfred Woods, was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 2 August 1981 in a land mine explosion at Loughmacrory near Omagh. He left a widow and six children. On 16 August 1982, his wife died of a broken heart; just over one year after her husband's murder. At 21 years of age, Ann was left to provide for two brothers and two sisters. At the time of her mother's death, she was in full-time employment, which she had to terminate to look after her younger siblings who were then all below the age of 12.
Ann struggled to be a "mother" and many other things. At the time, she was paid approximately £25 a week for each child and found it difficult to cope financially. People such as Ann should be given support. Their contribution should be recognised and I hope that the new police fund will do that in recognition of what Ann and others have done in circumstances such as those I have described.
I want to bring to the Minister's attention an excellent article by Gail Walker in the Belfast Telegraph on 5 December last year. The article contains an interview with Anne Anderson who, at the time, was 81 years old. On 18 October 1977, her husband, a retired RUC reservist, was murdered by the Provisional IRA near
204WH
Armagh. As Anne's husband John had retired and had been a reservist, he did not qualify for many of the benefits that would go to serving RUC officers. As a result Anne struggled for many years after her husband's death. She said:
"Although John had been shot because he'd been a policeman I was not entitled to be treated as a policeman's widow because he was retired from the force."
The article continued:
Last month, however, with the publication of the Steele report into the setting up of a Police Fund to compensate RUC widows and injured officers, Anne thought she might be eligible for some money.
After all, the RUC crest is on her husband's headstone. She has two medals he was awarded for bravery and service. Besides, her home is basic and in need of redecoration and repair but she only receives the basic widow's pension. Some cash, even a little, could make a difference.
But, once again, she was told that she didn't fall under its auspices. There was no category that included her.
Anne Anderson said:
"So, you see, at the end of the day, you are only a number, yet you don't actually count.
I hope that the new police fund will be able to do something for Anne Anderson in recognition of her years of struggle and heartbreak.
These are some examples of what I am talking about; the innocent victims of 30 years of conflict and terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. They deserve better than they are getting.
I know that the Government have made efforts and I commend the Minister, who is responsible for victims issues. I do not want this to be a criticism of the Minister, as I hope he understands. I am trying to highlight how the victims feel and I hope that he will take my comments in that spirit. These are difficult issues and there is a perception of a disparity between the treatment of those who were involved in violence and those who were the victims of that violence.
I have a couple of proposals that I hope the Minister will consider. First, the victims' liaison unit, which he established, should be expanded to become a proper victims' commission, with an increased remit and greater resources, to focus specifically on providing funding and support for the victims of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. This is not just about money, however—it is about much more than that.
Secondly, I urge the Government to make greater assistance available to bona fide victims' groups and to ensure that provision is made for future funding for those groups so that there is continuity of support. My concern, and theirs, is that much of the funding will come to an end—that this is a short-term fix. However, we all know that the hurt, the pain and the needs of the victims go on and on. Therefore, the support must be continuous. I ask the Minister to address the need for continued funding for bona fide victims' groups in Northern Ireland.
I have to say, with some regret, that the NIVT's role as an intermediary funding body for victims' groups should cease, and that the role should be passed to a new victims' commission, dealing specifically with victims. I do not mean to criticise the Minister when I say that it is insensitive that the NIVT, in the light of the remarks made by Avila Kilmurray, deals with funding for both

205WH
ex-prisoners' groups and victims' groups. The victims' groups and the victims deserve specific and particular resources to be made available for them. I believe that that can be achieved through the establishment of a victims' commission. It is important that such a commission should be properly funded and resourced. No money can ever compensate adequately for the pain and suffering of the innocent victims in Northern Ireland.
I do not make a distinction between victims from the Unionist or nationalist communities. Victims on both sides have suffered from terrorist violence. They need support, and I urge the Minister to take steps to improve and increase that support.
10.52 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) on securing this important Adjournment debate. He has covered the issue remarkably well.
I want to highlight one or two of the human issues that are sometimes forgotten, especially here in the Palace of Westminster and in Great Britain. People here do not realise that there is still a deep sore within Northern Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend that we are not dealing with victims from any particular group or in any particular part of our society. However, I have two illustrations, showing something of the barbarity with regard to loyalist terrorists.
A young man—a member of my congregation—was innocently caught up in one of the gang fights that has gone on over the years between two loyalist factions. For three years, he has been in a hospital, and has little recognition of anything. His father and family sit with him as regularly as possible. They have been forgotten, except by the hospital authorities.
I also think of the young man who is doing some work on the windows of my office. He said to my secretary, "It's a wonderful world. Here am I, toiling and grafting, and driving an old banger. I was getting petrol the other morning when I saw a leading ex-prisoner, now a loyalist politician, driving a Mercedes." I wondered what it was all about—so much so that when I attended the opening of the police ombudsman's office, I saw the Chief Constable and the chairman of the police authority, and I said, "Could you give me the name of so-and-so's stockbroker?" They knew what I was getting at, because one ex-prisoner attributed his wealth to the fact that he got £3 a week in prison and, with careful investment, had made his fortune. Those illustrations help us to understand something of the depth of the sore felt by people who have suffered and have been regularly forgotten by the state.
My hon. Friend referred to Mrs. Anderson. It appears that her husband and her family have been completely overlooked by the state. It has happened time and again—servants of the state have suffered not only at the hands of terrorists but at the hands of their employers, who have forgotten them.
I should like to highlight the problem of the court settlements which took place earlier in the conflict. A parishioner of mine, working as a bin man in Belfast,
206WH
was killed in the dastardly bombing in Donegal street. He left a widow and two boys. Compensation had to be pursued in the courts. The solicitor representing the widow said, "They're offering £1,500. It's all you're going to get." Some lawyers are very blunt with their clients, and he actually said to the widow, "You don't have to feed him." That is the way in which the law quite often treats victims. We argued the case, and finally got £2,500.
Thank God there have been those in Northern Ireland who have rallied round and helped such people. However, that does not allow the state to abrogate its responsibilities. Former Ministers over the years did not do the work to discover what was going on. I trust that the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend will be investigated. When we consider his illustration of the amount of money given to the relatives of the perpetrators of the attack on Loughgall station and compare it with what other families have received, it is an abomination.
A situation is developing in which the state is under siege by paramilitaries seeking compensation. In a case reported last week. Danny McNamee and Liam Coulter, two IRA prisoners, sued for injuries sustained by them when prison officers prevented their attempted jail break. I understand that that happened in Great Britain, not within the Northern Ireland prison services. That is what our state is faced with. Gerry Kelly, who has managed to make a living out of compensation claims, was awarded £9,000 in an out-of-court settlement for an injury received.
People compare the settlement in South Africa with the situation in Northern Ireland, but if we press that comparison further we see the tragedy of the victims of Kingsmill and Bloody Friday and others who will receive no justice. There will not even be transparency through a truth and reconciliation process, because—unlike South Africa—prisoner releases are not conditional. In South Africa, the amnesty was conditional on co-operation with the commission. Our plea to the Government is that they re-examine that matter.
There is no reason why people involved in committing acts of terrorism should be compensated for injuries received therein. I support the law that previously prevented such compensation. However, sometimes, men—from whatever background—who were involved in terrorist activity when they were young, who have served their prison sentence and have begun to redeem their lives and to make positive contributions to society, become the innocent victims of bombs or shooting. I know of one man whose pal received compensation for a graze, but although the man was seriously injured, he was not allowed compensation because he had served a prison sentence years ago. Will the Government re-examine the whole matter?
11.1 am
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) on securing the debate and on all the work he undertakes to highlight injustice in the compensation of victims in Northern Ireland.
Many people ask me why I take such an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I have never lived there and have no family there, although I make regular visits.

207WH
There are several reasons for my interest, one of which is my sense of injustice over certain matters. It is always a great pleasure to visit Northern Ireland and to see how resilient the people are. However, their resilience should not mean that they suffer injustice—the two should not go together.
We need to create a climate of peace in Northern Ireland. Many people will say that that is what the Belfast agreement was all about. However, it is tragic that, during discussions on the agreement, when we focus on so many things, we tend to forget the victims of the crimes committed from both sides of the divide.
It is difficult to create that climate of peace while the violence continues. We are not talking only of past victims—there continue to be victims in Northern Ireland every day. In answer to my questions, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office kindly supplies figures about the numbers of murders, shootings, beatings, bombings and explosions in Northern Ireland; that reminds us that the violence has not gone away. It is important to create a climate of peace.
On my most recent visit to Northern Ireland in November, we went to a loyalist area. I was with my daughter and her young daughter, who will soon be starting school. We passed a primary school, surrounded by murals, in the middle of areas controlled by the gun. I shall never forget the looks on people's faces as they saw the atmosphere in which children in Northern Ireland have to grow up. That is not the climate we want to create.
Surely, in order to counter the violence, we must pay more respect to victims. When I speak to victims' groups in Northern Ireland, they tell me that they do not want retribution but justice. Yes, of course, they want the people who commit atrocities to be punished—they are entitled to expect that justice—but they also want decent treatment for themselves and their families. They want compensation.
The recent prisoner releases have not helped to boost the morale or to ease the suffering of victims. The victims will not go away—nor should they; they should never be forgotten. The tragedy of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland is the number of victims who have been created.
During my recent visit, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley and I spoke to members of the group representing RUC widows. Some of their husbands had been murdered many years ago, but the pain remains. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the pre-1982 situation. Women who were widowed many years ago have suffered greatly; they have struggled financially and personally. When I talked to them, it was obvious that the pain had not eased. The last thing they need is a slap in the face—we must provide help for them. Where is the justice for them?
We should remember that the RUC is not an ordinary police force. The officers do not only counter the type of crimes that are committed in England—bad though those are. We are talking about the IRA: an organisation which not only murders people in Northern Ireland—that is terrible enough—but tried to bring down the whole British Government; indeed, it tries to remove the British Government by force. That is the opposition to peace that members of the RUC try to counter.
208WH
I support the proposals made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I draw attention to the suffering endured by members of the RUC—especially that of widows. It should never be forgotten—certainly not when the Government are reviewing current policing in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman says, compensation cannot fully make up for that suffering, but I suggest that such compensation—especially when compared to that given to the criminals—should certainly not be an insult.
11.6 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) on his success in securing the debate and on his choice of subject. From our previous correspondence and conversation and from his contributions to debates and to parliamentary questions, I know of the hon. Gentleman's particular interest in this subject; he is not new to the issue. That is also true of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth); I thank both him and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for their contributions.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government's record on this important aspect of public policy and, in particular, about the special attention that has been paid to the victims of the past 30 years of terrorist and paramilitary violence. It has been my privilege—albeit a difficult one—to oversee this matter in my role as Minister with responsibility for victims, and I shall comment further on that aspect of my role in Northern Ireland later in my contribution.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley makes a serious charge on the funding awarded to victims of terrorist violence. I ask him to bear several points in mind. The Government have been in office for only just over three years. He paid tribute to some of the work that the Government and I, as a Minister, have undertaken. We have tackled the issue with vigour and determination. I shall set out—unfortunately, it will have to be at length—the various, specific funding measures that the Government have undertaken, which I think will rebut the view that he expressed.
Overall, the Government place great emphasis on the needs of all victims of crime. Clearly, we have to cover the wider aspects of support to victims—not only the issues that have been raised this morning. Of course, that touches on the question of funding, which in many ways is central to the delivery of any policy. We have put in place policies and funding to address the needs of victims of crime. We also have partnerships with organisations that work directly with victims to provide appropriate support to those affected by crime in all its manifestations.
The Government are committed to ensuring that victims of crime in Northern Ireland are properly supported, and many direct funding initiatives are in place. For example, we provide core funds to Victim Support (Northern Ireland). Last year, that amounted to £787,000—an increase of 5 per cent. on the previous year. Victim Support handled almost 40,000 referrals last year and had a network of around 300 volunteers. I am considering further support for the organisation in that important work and hope to make an announcement shortly. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who provide such valuable work in a most difficult area.

209WH
There is concern about the problem of sexual abuse in Northern Ireland and how it impacts on the victims and their families. That is why I have taken the initiative to provide support for the Nexus Institute. It is a registered charity offering counselling and other support to a particular category of victims—the victims of sexual abuse and their families. Last summer, I provided a grant of £153,000, over three years, to fund the appointment of two trauma counsellors based in Belfast. That is new funding and it has ensured that an additional 476 counselling sessions for the victims of sexual abuse have been carried out in the past five months alone. During the same period, the waiting list for appointments in Belfast reduced from 16 to eight weeks. In many ways, we are only beginning to touch the surface of that complex problem, and I would anticipate further initiatives in the years ahead.
The Government are also keen to ensure that the victims of crime are kept informed throughout the criminal justice process, and we have funded some initiatives in this area. Several years ago, all organisations in the criminal justice system endorsed a code of practice for the victims of crime, which sets out the minimum standard of service that victims can expect. Leaflets and information packs have been prepared and distributed to provide victims with relevant information on, for example, who to contact and how to seek assistance in dealing with their trauma. That includes the information pack for the families of homicide victims that I launched last year. It is important that the victims should not feel isolated as they work through their problems arising from crime. They should know that help is only a phone call away.
In addition, a review of the criminal justice system has been completed as part of the implementation of the Belfast agreement. The review made 15 recommendations about victims and witnesses, all of which have been endorsed by the Government. We appreciate that victims and witnesses—not least those who are vulnerable and intimidated—have special needs in the criminal justice system, and the Government remain committed to improving access to justice for those people.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme provides compensation for individual victims of crime. Payments are made in respect of criminal injuries and criminal damage. Since the scheme was established, more than £500 million has been paid as a result of criminal injuries, and almost £1 billion for criminal damage. Those figures represent a significant amount of Government funding for the victims of crime.
A review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme in Northern Ireland, led by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, was established in October 1998. It examined the fitness for purpose of the current arrangements and was asked to make recommendations for improvements in the future. The final report was published in July 1999, and a post-publication review on its recommendations was conducted during the latter half of 1999. In July 2000, the Government published their response to the report and accepted the broad thrust of its recommendations.
210WH
The key change involves the simplification and speeding up of the process of awarding compensation through the introduction of a tariff scheme, with award levels based on recent settlements in Northern Ireland. That will result in tariff payments higher, on average, than under the Great Britain scheme. That change and various others, such as the ability to provide structured payments rather than lump sums, the facility to reopen settled cases in certain circumstances, increases to bereavement awards and some discretion on time limits, will be introduced in April 2002.
We aim to publish draft legislation for the new compensation scheme in April this year. Accepting those recommendations has not been cost neutral. In the 2000 spending review, I successfully bid for an additional £74 million over the next three years to introduce the improved arrangements.
As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley has said, European funding has been an important aspect of the funding route involved in the matters to which he referred. It is undoubtedly an important source of funds for victim support groups under the peace and reconciliation funds. That programme is administered by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, as an intermediary funding body.
The hon. Gentleman made strong allegations about the chairperson of that fund. She is not here to defend herself today. I have taken note of what he has said and, no doubt, that debate will continue between us. However, those who serve on that body have a very difficult task. They are undertaking a role on behalf of the rest of society in Northern Ireland. It is not an easy job, and many politicians have walked away from it in the past. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) do not fall into that category, but many politicians have suddenly alighted on the issue of victims. Meanwhile, hard work has been done and difficult decisions have been taken by people such as the chairperson of the NIVT and the others who serve alongside her, but, of course, the handling of such matters is changing anyway.
Negotiations are currently under way on the allocation of peace 2 funds—the latest round of funding from Europe. Policy on the allocation of those funds is now the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I understand that the Executive Committee has agreed that the victims of violence should be specifically identified in that programme as a group requiring continuing support. I welcome that recognition of victims' needs. However, such matters are the exclusive responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly; they are not matters for the United Kingdom Government, and it is inappropriate for me to comment further on them.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I realise that such matters are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but criminal justice Bills are dealt with by this House. Can the Assembly retrospectively help those folk who may have been missed in the past?
Mr. Ingrain: It is not for me to say what the Assembly can and cannot do, or how it applies the law of the land. If the Assembly decides to spend money from its allocation of funds, that is a matter for it. Of course, it

211WH
has established means by which it can examine victims issues, but I was specifically explaining how the new peace 2 funds will be handled. Such decisions are matters for the Assembly, not central Government.
On the special needs victims of the troubles, one of the Government's early initiatives was to commission Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to
look at possible ways to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence arising from the Troubles.
Sir Kenneth's report, entitled "We Will Remember Them", was published in May 1998. The Government immediately accepted its recommendations. I was appointed Minister with responsibility for victims at that time, and I can honestly say that such matters are difficult to deal with because they involve sensitive issues for victims and groups of victims.
The Bloomfield report challenged everyone to begin to consider the trauma that more than 30 years of violence had wrought on the community in Northern Ireland, and further afield. Incredibly, very little recognition had been given to the bereaved and injured in the preceding years. Although some good work had undoubtedly been undertaken by the statutory and community sectors, there was no overarching or systematic approach to the problems faced by individual victims and survivors and their particular needs. That is perhaps understandable.
Victims often felt unable to articulate their views in a society where business as usual was the order of the day. However, the ceasefires and the political progress that led to the Belfast agreement allowed the previously silent voice of victims to be heard. The failures of the past are now being dealt with constructively and meaningfully. The silent voice of the victims has become stronger in recent years, and I attribute that in large measure to the impact of the Bloomfield report, which is one of the most humane and sensitive reports to Government that I have read.
I have met many individuals and have heard their demands and needs, and I have tried to take on board what I heard. I know that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley speaks from deep personal experience—experiences shared by too many families in Northern Ireland and beyond. I also know that grief is grief and that the loss of one person in a single incident long ago that is long forgotten by most people is a daily remembrance for the family left behind.
I understand that the peace process has been difficult for many victims, not least the early release of prisoners which was, and remains, particularly painful for many. Many of those people feel that they have paid the price for peace and that, having paid that price, think that we will abandon them. The Government have not and will not abandon the victims and survivors. We have made a good start, beginning as we did from virtually nothing. I have said before in the House and elsewhere that we effectively inherited a blank sheet when we came into government. We have had to build on that.
The Government allocated an initial £5 million to support the implementation of the Bloomfield report. This was subsequently and quickly increased to £6.25 million. A number of important initiatives have also been put in place to support individual victims and survivors, and the groups that support them. The initiatives include the provision of £700,000 towards the
212WH
establishment of a new family trauma centre in Belfast for young people and their families and the provision of £2 million for the Northern Ireland memorial fund that the Government established in 1997 to provide support to individual victims, to raise awareness of victims issues and to raise funds to support the work of the fund. In addition to that funding, the Government have also allocated staff to help with the fund's running costs.
I am delighted with the progress of the Northern Ireland memorial fund and with the commitment of its chairman, Professor George Bain, the vice-chancellor of Queen's university, Belfast, and the other directors of the fund. The Government are also committed to support further the NI memorial fund.
We have also provided £3 million for the core funding of victims groups over a two-year period. This fund is being administered by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. Despite reports, no victims group has been turned down for funding through this scheme—although a few have been offered capacity building grants before larger core funding grants are approved. The scheme will be evaluated later this year and we will consider how the scheme might be developed further.
I wish to point out that some groups demand funding simply because they are a group. We are talking about public money and those who are charged with responsibility for its disbursement have to evaluate critically the schemes that are suggested to them. When we judge that the schemes do not stack up in terms of what is claimed for them, we usually tackle the problem by offering the group a sum of money so that it can begin to identify in a much more precise manner what it is trying to achieve. That is capacity-building funding, which allows the group to build a business case—although that may not be the best phrase to use. However, that is the way that any group seeking public money must approach the source of funding. I stress that no groups have been refused public funding even though there have been press reports to that effect.
The Government also provided £300,000 to run an educational bursary scheme on a pilot basis. About 350 individual victims received payments to undertake a variety of academic and vocational courses. The Community Relations Council was also given £225,000 to operate a grants scheme for victims groups. This gave small grants for activities that were not applicable under the core grant scheme
The resources so far allocated to victims have been significant. To date, in addition to the £6.25 million provided through the victims liaison unit—which reports to me—£2.2 million has been allocated through European Union peace and reconciliation funds. Victims groups have also been eligible to apply for additional EU funds, which have been distributed by the district partnerships and other funding bodies.
Mr. Donaldson: I seek clarification of one point. The Minister referred earlier to the Northern Ireland Assembly's responsibilities for victims issues. However, he correctly said that the victims liaison unit reports directly to him, and it has a significant responsibility in this regard. Therefore, is he able, as the Minister, to consider my proposal for a victims commission that

213WH
would supersede the victims liaison unit? Is that not properly part of his responsibility, rather than that of the Assembly?
Mr. Ingrain: I was going to deal with that point in my concluding remarks, but I shall deal with it now. I am not unsympathetic to that concept, but perhaps not in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes it. However, such a body cannot simply be delivered by me alone. There is now a shared responsibility for victims, and much of the provision for victims is now done through the devolved Administration in the health and education sectors and elsewhere. I cannot direct the Administration on that. Therefore, we must consider in partnership how we evolve the policy.
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield talked about a champion for victims and that phrase struck a chord. If such a person or body were set up, it would have to be resourced. The debate is then about which agency would resource it. However, if the body were resourced, the money for it might not go directly towards victims groups. Judgments must be made. Although I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, I do not think that we have yet reached the point where we are able to see how best to take it forward.
The Assembly has established its own victims unit under two junior Ministers, and I am in constant discussion with them about how we evolve the relationship between central Government and the devolved Administration. Since I become involved in the issue—and even before the devolved Administration was in place—I have always taken the view that responsibility does not rest just with central Government. The policy must engage the whole community if it is to succeed. Therefore, we need constructive voices to suggest how we can move forward.
Mr. Donaldson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ingram: I will, but that may mean that I am not able to respond to all the issues raised.
Mr. Donaldson: Will the Minister at least give a commitment to discuss the possibility of a victims commission with junior Ministers in the Assembly to see whether a joint approach can be developed?
Mr. Ingram: I can give that guarantee. Such matters are on-going, but I would not necessarily like to develop
214WH
the policy in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield talked about a victims champion. Although this may not be the best place to share my thought processes, my instinct is that such a body should be created at minimum cost. Otherwise, money will be spent on bureaucracy rather than on the distribution of funds. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my view on that. We must consider how the policy can best be delivered.
In the time remaining, I shall turn to the important issue of RUC widows and widowers. There are too many widows and too many injured RUC officers, and I echo many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. The Government have no lack of sympathy for, or appreciation of, those people. The Patten report undoubtedly caused particular concern for those members of RUC families, but, in paragraphs 10.20 and 10.21, it recognised their plight. Those paragraphs refer to officers who have not been treated as well as they should have been and they recommended
that a substantial fund be set up to help injured police officers, injured retired officers and their families, as well as widows.
That is what we have set out to do.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Steele report, which was a comprehensive analysis of the situation. It was a difficult issue for John Steele to deal with, because he had to try to square many different points of view. He consulted widely and listened carefully to what members of RUC families said to him. His report was published last November. He proposed that a police fund be set up and said that
the establishment of such a fund is certainly required
and that the fund's role should extend widely. He also said:
It is … right that the State should recognise the special place of those RUC families which have suffered most grievously.
He came reluctantly—that is his word—to the conclusion that the fund should be limited to deaths and injuries caused directly by terrorist violence, because that distinguishes the RUC from other United Kingdom police services.
I wanted to make several points about the fund, and I regret that I will not have the opportunity to do so. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about some of the points that he raised. However, I want to point out that £11 million will be allocated to the support mechanisms, which is substantially more than he said was available to ex-prisoners. We should also add to that figure the £4.5 million that has been given to the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust and all the other figures that I have mentioned. That funding rebuts the hon. Gentleman's core charge that there is an imbalance against victims. That may have been the case, but it is no longer.

Energy Efficiency
11.30 am
Mr. Clive Efford: Timing is sometimes a problem when initiating such debates, but this time it has been fortuitous. Only this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change added weight to the issue of energy efficiency by publishing its report on climatic change. It makes grim reading and suggests that global warming will be more severe than previously thought.
Launching the report yesterday, the head of the United Nations environment programme, Dr. Klaus Toepfler, said:
The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report about human induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and every local community.
The report itself says that the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now a third higher than in 1750, a concentration that
has not been exceeded during the last 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years.
The report also reveals that scientists believe that man is involved in climate change and sets out the impact of such change, which is also expected to be worse than previously thought. Sea levels might rise by up to 88 cm, which could have a devastating impact on tens of millions of people who live in low-lying areas. The need to take the issue seriously could not be made clearer.
I know that the issue of saving energy in offices in the United Kingdom is a narrow aspect of the climate change agenda, but I hope that that background gives an idea of the importance of relevant policy. I decided to initiate the debate because the report "White-Collar Co2", which was published by the Association for the Conservation of Energy, made me fear that energy consumption in offices has recently been neglected, both in terms of recognition and scrutiny of the problem, and of the application of policies and programmes to solve it. I hope that the debate will begin a process that moves us towards improving energy conservation in offices.
The rate of growth in energy consumption in the past 25 years has been approximately three times greater in the commercial sector than in the domestic sector. Energy use in the commercial sector is projected to exceed growth in all other sectors, except transport. The warning from the IPCC yesterday, and the Government's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide by 20 per cent., show that we cannot afford to continue to ignore the commercial sector.
The growth in energy consumption is partly explained by rapid expansion. Offices occupied twice as much floor space in 1994 as they did in 1970. There has also been an increase in information technology and other equipment, which, of course, require electricity. Demand for air conditioning has grown rapidly, causing a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions. However, regardless of the increase in the area that offices occupy, the figures still show an unusual failure. Whereas newer homes, appliances and machinery tend to be more energy efficient than earlier versions, office buildings have bucked the trend. A modern office today is likely to use more energy than it would have used 20 years ago to make the same contribution to the economy.
216WH
The prospects for saving energy in offices have benefits beyond reducing CO2 emissions. Just as improving energy efficiency in homes leads to improved comfort and, in the most extreme cases, even saves lives, improving energy efficiency in offices also pays off in other ways. Improvements to worker comfort can produce healthier and productive working environments, and carrying out improvements to offices can also create jobs.
However, there are significant barriers to energy efficient construction and retrospective fitting in the commercial sector. Although fuel bills represent a single proportion of occupancy costs, occupiers are usually tenants and generally pay an overall service charge that is based on occupied area. That leaves people who run offices unaware of their energy consumption and they are unlikely to be keen to spend money to improve the fabric of a building that they do not own.
Furthermore, large institutional investors who take a hands-off approach to managing their assets own almost half the UK's commercial property stock. They have been unconcerned about energy consumption in their properties because they can simply pass the cost on to the occupiers. Ironically, many offices are owned by the very insurance companies that bemoan the fact that climate change will force them to increase premium prices; yet the buildings in which they have invested money are the only part of the UK economy that is getting less energy efficient and, therefore, making the situation worse.
There is an historic lack of interest, formidable hurdles to action and a failure by big players in the relevant industries to see the logical benefits of such action. It will take a determined effort by the Government to turn that around. There are various ways in which they can do that. They need to commit themselves to providing the tools that allow us to monitor and address the problem.
The problem with the commercial sector is masked by the way in which energy consumption data are compiled by the Department of Trade and Industry. In the annual digest of UK energy statistics, the commercial sector is included in the category of other final users, which also includes public administration and agriculture. The Department reported that other final users increased their energy use far less than other sectors. That use rose by 16.6 per cent. between 1973 and 1998, compared with 22.5 per cent. in the domestic sector and 62.5 per cent. in the transport sector. Understandably, given those figures, offices have been given little attention.
However, the figures hide the problem of offices because the aggregation of other final users combines the commercial sector, which is rapidly growing, with the agriculture sector and the public sector, which are growing very slowly, or even falling. The commercial sector's final energy consumption grew by 65 per cent. between 1973 and 1996, but that incredible increase was hidden in the figures. It grew faster than even the transport sector and compares with just 1 per cent. growth in the energy consumption of public sector services.
Most critically, the commercial sector has shown no improvement in what the experts call energy intensity for well over 10 years. That is defined as energy consumption divided by contribution to gross domestic

217WH
product, and effectively measures the energy efficiency of an entire sector. The sector has, therefore, become less efficient in its use of energy. While there has been a rapid growth in economic output from the service sector, energy consumption has increased just as rapidly.
Indeed, according to the energy consumption guide for energy, there has been a significant deterioration in the energy intensity in the UK tertiary sector. In 1995, it consumed 30 per cent. more energy per unit of value added to the economy than it did in 1990. However, those facts have not been spotted, reported or addressed. My first suggestion is that the Government commit themselves to publishing additional figures that identify the increase in energy use in the commercial sector. We must prevent the figures from masking the problem and therefore hindering action.
My second suggestion is that the Government encourage specific programmes to promote energy efficiency in offices. As far as I am aware, the only programme to encourage energy efficiency in offices is the lightswitch programme, run by the Energy Saving Trust Ltd, which promotes the use of energy-efficient lighting in small and medium-sized enterprises. I hope that the Minister will inform me that there are more schemes, but I confess that I have not found them.
Detailed research as part of the best practice programme has shown the scope for saving energy in offices. It found that typical offices use 60 to 90 per cent. more energy than the minority of offices that follow good practice. The Government should ensure that the EST and, indeed, the new Carbon Trust, when it is in operation, have the resources necessary to run promotional schemes that encourage and publicise energy in offices. The EST has had a considerable success with its domestic schemes. That must be built on and extended to introduce the necessary shifts in the commercial sector.
The Minister must also address the major barriers in energy efficiency in offices, the biggest of which is probably the classic landlord-tenant barrier. Tenants are understandably reluctant to invest in energy efficiency measures for a building which they do not own, and landlords are reluctant to invest to save money on tenants fuel bills or service charges. Only 10 per cent. of offices are occupied by the freeholder. All these factors constitute an important barrier to energy conservation.
Although the climate change levy will send a small signal to the market about the need to save energy, it will not help to overcome that barrier. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has suggested that an obligation should be placed on freeholders of commercial properties to ensure that their buildings meet a minimum energy efficiency performance standard. The obligation to undertake an energy audit and improve energy efficiency should be enforced every five years, or whenever the building is sold, re-let or subject to rent review. The average period between rent reviews in the United Kingdom is five years.
218WH
The policy should be framed so that it sends to those developing new properties a clear signal that prevention is better than cure—in other words, that from the outset the building should be designed for low energy consumption. There should be a requirement for consultation with occupiers and unions before refurbishment plans are made for existing buildings. Consideration should be given to ways in which the costs and financial benefits of energy efficiency improvements can be shared among owners, occupiers and energy service companies.
This idea is ambitious, but it should be considered seriously by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Much detail would have to be sorted out, but the principle that freeholders should take responsibility for ensuring that their buildings meet minimum standards seems sensible. There is a similar requirement on private car owners, who must ensure that their cars meet certain emission standards in the annual MOT test. An equivalent measure is essential for the commercial sector, which over the past two decades has outstripped the transport sector in environmental impact.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the insurance industry, which owns almost £40 billion worth of the commercial property assets in the UK—15 per cent. of the total value—has in a few cases begun to improve energy efficiency in its property stock. Prudential Property Portfolio has called for legislation to ensure that every commercial building is audited every five years, and that the recommendations are implemented before the next audit.
Prudential has already taken steps to assist its tenants to save energy, in particular by making efforts to ensure that all tenants receive individual bills based on their energy consumption, rather than on floor area alone. That is a positive step, but only a limited amount of energy can be saved until attention is turned to the building fabric and the heating and cooling systems. Improvements to those should be the responsibility of the freeholder.
The insurance industry is concerned about the impact of climate change, especially as extreme weather events could lead to heavy insurance claims. In a position paper dealing with the framework convention on climate change, which was presented by member companies of the United Nations Environment Programme on 9 July 1996, the industry stated:
Man made climate change will lead to shifts in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. This will probably increase the likelihood of extreme weather events in certain areas. Such effects carry the risk of dramatically increased property damage, with a serious implication for property insurers."
The paper continued that
without political initiatives, market forces alone may not result in the efficient use of investment potential."
If the industry itself believes that nothing will happen without political intervention, we must act.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider policy ideas to effect change, and will particularly study the possibility of regular surveys and improvements to offices. I thank him for coming to listen and take part in the debate, which I hope will be the beginning of a more careful look at energy efficiency in offices and commercial buildings. As I said, we need new data to highlight the problems and new policies to address them.
11.43 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on securing the debate. Although the subject does not have a high political profile at present, as the attendance this morning indicates, it is important and will become increasingly so as the nature of service economies changes and the demand for energy triggered by increasing use of new technology in offices results in a continuing increase in emissions from the commercial sector.
In the past two or three years, since the Government announced their intention to introduce the climate change levy, it is striking that in the manufacturing sector there is a growing understanding of the significance of climate change, of the urgency for manufacturing to increase the efficiency of its energy use, and of the opportunities for manufacturing industry to save money by investing in energy efficiency.
In my discussions with the Engineering Employers Federation in the north-west during the past few weeks, I have been struck by the extent to which the opportunities provided by the drive for greater energy efficiency are now understood. That is not to say that all manufacturers are enormous fans of the climate change levy. Clearly, there are reservations about and particular difficulties in the implementation of the levy, but the intellectual argument with manufacturing has been won, and more and more manufacturers see financial and business opportunities in moving to more energy-efficient forms of production.
In the commercial sector, that is not yet the case, with a few honourable exceptions. In many ways, that is understandable. The reasons highlighted by my hon. Friend make sense: the fact that responsibility is split between the landlord and tenant in commercial premises; the fact that in the commercial sector, the proportion of the business cost consumed by energy is comparatively low, and in recent years the unit cost of energy has fallen year on year, even though the total demand has increased; the fact that accountancy practices often write off investments in conservation over a shorter period than the full physical lifetime of the investment; and the lack of awareness of best practice in many offices.
There is little discussion of energy efficiency in the commercial sector, in contrast with the manufacturing sector. That is evident in the parliamentary estate. The last Adjournment debate that I attended in Westminster Hall took place last week. I estimate that the temperature in the Chamber was about 80 deg, so even in Westminster Hall, where the design and fittings are new, there are still problems with the control of temperature.
If we look around the parliamentary estate, with the honourable exception of Portcullis House, we can all see examples of the profligate use of energy. Sometimes the only way to maintain a balanced temperature in a room is to open a window, because the radiators do not have adequate controls. There are lessons to be learned by Government in the management of the parliamentary estate.
In the commercial sector, rents are often determined by location, rather than by the performance of the building. For obvious reasons, people will pay more to
220WH
be in the city centre, regardless of the energy efficiency of the building that they choose. Energy service charges are usually incorporated into the overall rent, and are thus somehow invisible to the tenant. These factors make it entirely understandable that, in the commercial sector, energy efficiency has not had the highest priority.
As the service economy becomes more important, as the balance between services and manufacturing shifts, and as a greater proportion of our overall economic output is in the domain of the service sector, practices will need to change. I mentioned the huge increase in equipment in the service sector in recent years. The growth of computers, fax machines and now the internet is escalating at a rate that we could not have anticipated 20 or even 10 years ago. The consumption of energy will increase continuously, so the issue cannot be ignored. It must be confronted.
The matter has been highlighted yet again by yesterday's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to which my hon. Friend referred. We cannot afford to ignore the startling results of the IPCC's second report, and the fact that the IPCC has revised its figures upwards by such a significant amount. The IPCC now predicts that the average temperature of the planet may increase by up to 6 deg C over the next 100 years. In its first report, the IPCC put that rise at a maximum of 3.5 deg C. Current estimates are therefore 80 per cent. higher than previously.
In addition, the IPCC now says that climate change and global warming are almost inevitably the result of human activity, whereas in its first report it said that human activity had a discernible influence. The science of analysing the causes of climate change is becoming more secure. It is rare to hear people dispute that climate change is taking place, or that its main cause is human activity and the burning of fossil fuels.
The IPCC report published yesterday should concentrate all our minds. It means that actions taken by Governments on the basis of the first report, and of the Kyoto agreements, need to be revised. To their enormous credit, the British Government published their climate change strategy towards the end of last year, but the assumptions on which it was based are now out of date and obsolete. We should consider how it can be adjusted to take account of the latest evidence and statistics contained in the second report from the IPCC.
Policies need to be developed to deal with energy efficiency in the commercial sector. Implementing some of those policies may need primary or secondary legislation, but others could be implemented by means of codes of practice. I shall offer several examples of what could be done.
It would be possible to place a duty on freeholders, when new leases are granted or rents reviewed, to undertake an energy efficiency survey of their property. They would then be required to provide the details of the results to their tenants. In the domestic sector, the importance of such an idea is close to being accepted. A lively debate is taking place in connection with the Homes Bill about whether the energy efficiency survey should be part of the seller's pack, and whether that requirement should be written into the Bill or it is adequate for it to appear in later regulations.
If the argument that energy efficiency ratings should be documented and available to purchasers or tenants of a property is accepted as sound in the domestic sector, it

221WH
should also be so accepted in the commercial sector. The same responsibility should be placed on commercial freeholders.
Another possibility would be to extend the duties on councils as energy conservation authorities under the Energy Conservation (Housing) Act 2000 to include all offices in their areas. Again, that would transfer a principle already accepted in the domestic sector to the commercial sector.
It would be possible to require each public limited company to publish a statement in its annual report setting out its fuel consumption per square meter. An increasing number of the major private companies include an environmental element in their annual reports. Some have taken a lead and have produced a separate environmental report, in which energy efficiency is a key performance indicator.
A slightly more aggressive tactic would be to target those freehold companies that have an especially poor energy efficiency record. Adopting a name-and-shame policy with regard to the most profligate users of energy in the commercial sector would be newsworthy and would concentrate the minds of other companies in a beneficial way.
There is clearly no shortage of ideas and policies to help increase energy efficiency in offices, which could be implemented without the need for a lot of new primary legislation. I shall conclude with three points that I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will consider, in the context of the commercial sector and of ensuring that our overall climate change strategy is properly monitored and, in view of yesterday's second IPCC report, adequately updated.
First, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to update continuously the Government's climate change strategy? I accept that it was published only recently, after a long period of consultation, but would it not make sense to revisit the strategy to take account of the new figures contained in yesterday's IPCC report?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be valuable for the House to have an annual debate on the Government's overall sustainable development policy? I suspect that he will agree, given his response to an Adjournment debate last week. Such a debate would provide an opportunity to discuss the annual progress of the climate change strategy, and to look in detail at issues such as energy efficiency in the commercial sector. It would also give hon. Members the opportunity to check progress and to generate new ideas for further policy change.
Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend discuss with ministerial colleagues the question of a formal review of energy efficiency throughout the parliamentary estate? I appreciate that the Government do not have direct responsibility for management of the estate, but the House of Commons Commission would be likely to take the matter of energy efficiency more seriously if the Government set objectives and took the lead in raising the issue.
Finally, we need to secure in the commercial sector the sort of change of thinking that has already been secured in the manufacturing sector. The commercial
222WH
sector must be encouraged to understand that investment in energy efficiency is not a cost and that introducing it should be not be done grudgingly or as a result of Government diktat. Energy efficiency can bring about significant financial savings, and it will also help us to meet our carbon dioxide emissions targets. Achieving those targets is even more important in the light of yesterday's IPCC report.
11.57 am
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on securing this debate. It is true that the Chamber is not exactly crowded, but there is no doubt that this subject is very important and that its significance goes far beyond the number of people present for the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham was right to place the debate in the context of climate change. Arguably, climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world. It is certainly the greatest environmental challenge that we have to meet.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report estimates that temperatures will rise over the next 100 years by 5.8 deg C. That compares with that organisation's previous estimate of a rise of 3.6 deg C. The figures may appear small, but their implications are massive. For example, 150,000 years ago, a fall of only 5 deg C meant that an equable climate became an ice age, in which ice came down from the north to cover Siberia, the northern European plain and north America. An increase of some 6 deg C from current levels is not without precedent in the Earth's history, but it is without precedent in the recent history of mammals, including human beings. The wider consequences are totally unpredictable. In those circumstances, the Government take the view, which I am sure is right, that we certainly should make a very precautionary response.
We know the causes of the increase in carbon dioxide. The first is the profligate use of energy—much of which is wasted extensively into the environment—by the domestic and industrial sectors. The second is the increasing number of vehicles, not only in this country but throughout the world—including the developing world, which will, in the next 50 years, rapidly move to our levels of mobility by vehicles. The third cause is the continuing, massive use across the world, especially by industry, of fossil fuels, with the consequent need to shift to renewable sources of energy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham was right to point out that, in the 200 years since industrialisation began, in the late 18th century, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about a third, from about 270 ppm to between 360 and 365 ppm. That increase is highly significant in such a short time; in geological time, 200 years is the twinkling of an eye. The key point is that concentrations of CO2 are not cyclical, like the economy; the upward trend will continue unless we reverse it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North rightly said, the IPCC report draws attention to the fact that there is not just a discernible anthropogenic influence, but that the scientific community—this report

223WH
is underpinned by 2,000 or 3,000 scientists worldwide—is increasingly sure that, although it may not be the only influence, man-made global warming is certainly a significant, and perhaps an increasingly dominant, influence on our climate, with all the consequences.
My hon. Friend asked whether we would review the climate change strategy in the light of the most recent figures. We must of course take them into account and review our programmes. I shall set out the immediate programmes.
First, we must reach the agreement that we narrowly failed to achieve at The Hague, so that the countries of the world agree on the steps to achieve at least the Kyoto protocol of a 5 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions compared with those for 1990. We have not done so yet. The climate change programme in the United Kingdom is not in place yet, although I believe that we are probably more advanced than any other country in setting in quantified form the range of measures that will be necessary to deliver our commitments. Legally, those are a commitment to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. from 1990 levels, and our own domestic target to reduce CO2 by 20 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1990. We are very close to achieving that, and I firmly believe that we will do so.
We will of course review those figures. It is more in the international field that the message of urgency and the need for rapid action by all the countries of the world needs to be heard, when we resume after what I hope was the temporary failure at The Hague. I believe that the message will have a major impact.
I should have liked to be able 1o tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North that we would hold an annual debate on sustainable development. I was in this Chamber only a week ago when we were discussing greening government, and there is an admirable recommendation that we should hold an annual debate on that subject. The decision to hold such a debate lies not with me but with my colleagues collectively and with the Leader of the House, but I am only too pleased to convey the request emanating from this debate for such an annual discussion on the Floor of the House. I shall respond to my hon. Friend's request for a report on the energy efficiency of the parliamentary estate a little later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, entirely appropriately and with great force, has focused on the role of the commercial sector. Undoubtedly, its role in generating climate change is greater than many people—and many people who own offices—realise. It shocked me when I was first informed that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions generated by the commercial sector in the period up to 2010 was expected to be greater than that for the iron and steel sector or the chemical sector, which are widely recognised to have a major impact. That is the collective aggregate of the effects of buildings and equipment, which may be small individually but which are widely spread across the country. Thus the commercial sector is very important.
I paid careful attention to my hon. Friend when he said that the way in which we present the statistics conceals the role of the commercial sector. I hope that he will accept from me that that is not the intention, but that form of presentation is not helpful and we will look into it to ensure that the generators of climate change are properly identified.
224WH
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not very informative to have a category of other final users that shows a net increase of about 16 per cent. which is made up of a much bigger increase on the commercial side and a small or even negative impact on agriculture and the public sector. That compares with the really big increases of more than 60 per cent. in transport, and 22 per cent. in the domestic sector. I shall certainly see whether we can present the statistics more meaningfully.
Mr. Efford: To re-emphasise the point, there is a 16.6 per cent. increase across the other user sector, but a 65 per cent. increase in the service sector alone. Although I have no figures to prove it, that suggests that in the agricultural sector and the public sector there are likely to be owner-occupiers, who are more closely attuned to the costs of heating, lighting and fuelling equipment in their properties, whereas in the service sector, rentals are dominant, and businesses are likely to be unaware of the specific costs of running the premises and equipment that they rent.
Mr. Meacher: That is a fair point, which I shall come to shortly.
My hon. Friend urged that a discrete figure be published for the commercial sector; I will look at that.
On encouraging energy efficiency in offices, I hope that the remarks that I am about to make will persuade my hon. Friend that there is more than one driver; there are a range of measures here. They may not yet be sufficient, but they are reasonably extensive. My hon. Friend also wanted the Energy Saving Trust Ltd. to have a remit to promote energy efficiency in offices. I undertake to look into that. That is not its main thrust, but I understand my hon. Friend's arguments entirely.
My hon. Friend has a track record, and an honourable history, in this area. He introduced a private Member's Bill—the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill—to require mortgage lenders, as part of any survey carried out, to provide mortgage applicants with information on the energy efficiency—the standard assessment procedure rating—of a dwelling, and a practical means of improving it.
In the Homes Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made clear the Government's commitment to ensure that energy efficiency information will be part of the home condition report produced as part of the seller's pack. I hope that the long and determined efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham to ensure that that is finally achieved will secure their goal.
May I refer to the point that my hon. Friend has just made about barriers? Key barriers are a lack of commitment from the freeholder and the barrier to occupier action caused by leasing arrangements. Through the energy efficiency best practice programme, we encourage freeholders to carry out energy audits on their building stock. Advice and support are certainly available to them through the programme, but perhaps my hon. Friend wants rather more direct measures. That is beyond the Government at the moment, but it is not as though we neglect the matter. We encourage tenants to ask their freeholder about the energy performance of the buildings when rent reviews and changes to the

225WH
leasing conditions are carried out. Again, it is not automatic that that will happen at such moments, but we are trying to secure an agreement from both sides that it should happen regularly.
Mr. Efford: Have any targets been set in relation to those measures to achieve a reduction in an area that has experienced substantial growth in consumption?
Mr. Meacher: At the moment, there are no targets and no strategy requirement for a rent review. Those matters are entirely a contractual arrangement between the landlord and the tenant, but we can and should look at that issue further if we do not secure the objective of the exercise.
I deal now with the detail of what we are trying to do. Retail premises, hotels, commercial offices, non-industrial warehouses and sports and leisure facilities are collectively responsible for about 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year. That needs to be set against total emissions in this country of about 160 million tonnes of carbon as of 1990. That is roughly the ceiling that we have to reduce by about 12.5 per cent. or, in the case of CO2, 20 per cent. The figure of 10 million tonnes is therefore significant.
Savings of 20 per cent.—the figure used in the report of Lord Marshall, an ex-president of the Confederation of British Industry—are certainly achievable if businesses adopt cost-effective measures. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said that energy efficiency does not impose a cost burden on business; it does not saddle them with further bureaucratic requirements. It is about getting them to make changes that are in their own interest. Although there is a capital outlay at the outset, savings in a relatively short payback period—three to five years in most cases—are considerable. Measures that would, for example, reduce considerably typical office fuel bills of up to £30 a year per square metre of treated floor area fall within the range of 20 per cent. savings in energy use.
A commercial building that is designed, commissioned and built to appropriate high energy efficiency specifications will, as I said, bring business benefits through its use and maintenance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, the beauty of that is not just an environmental gain—it is a win-win situation. The resulting energy savings benefit the environment, and the consequential social benefits of improved comfort and productivity are good for business and create jobs. There are few examples of necessary reform which bring together so neatly benefits across the piece. We highlight those opportunities in our sustainable construction strategy "Building a better quality of life" which, my hon. Friends will recall, was published last April and identifies 10 key areas for action, including energy in construction processes and energy in building use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham is right to say that there are barriers, to which I have already referred. We are not going to achieve 100 per cent. improved energy efficiency in commercial buildings overnight—no one is suggesting that—nor should we expect to, as there are real cultural barriers to overcome. The
226WH
Property Advisory Group identified the inherent inertia among most owners and occupiers in its 1998 report "Sustainable Development and Buildings". It is a good report, and I am grateful for the considerable work that went into it. Lack of awareness and a perception of associated higher costs undoubtedly pose additional barriers, which the Government cannot overcome alone. Frankly, they will be overcome only if industry bites the bullet.
The report considers the contribution that commercial buildings could make to sustainable development in a broad sense and acknowledges that many existing commercial buildings are inefficient in their use of energy. As I said, inertia, lack of awareness, and scepticism about the financial advantages of energy efficiency are barriers to be overcome. The report makes specific recommendations. Building regulations, for example, are to reflect best practice—we are tackling that through the current review of part L of the building regulations and through initiatives such as the energy efficiency best practice programme. If I have a chance, I shall say a little about that before I finish.
The report recommends that the Government consider the scope for a compulsory environmental audit—again, that point has been made today. The energy efficiency best practice programme actively encourages greater use of energy audits. The report recommends appropriate taxation to encourage more environmentally friendly use of buildings which, of course, the climate change levy is designed to tackle. It also encourages more information sharing on environmental issues among stakeholders, which we are addressing through our support for more extensive and fuller environmental reports. I am still considering whether that should be made statutory, but that is not our current intention. However, we will have to look at that if we do not get much further with companies that are outside the FTSE 100. We are also encouraging information sharing through MACC2—Making a Corporate Commitment 2. That is how those barriers can be overcome.
I shall now talk a little about the legislative framework. We shall provide an appropriate underpinning legal framework. Our proposals to amend the energy provisions of the building regulations—the part L proposals—would raise fabric insulation, heating and hot water efficiency standards and introduce new lighting and air conditioning standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham mentioned lighting, but it is not just about the light switch programme. Our proposals would introduce standards for the commissioning, testing and provision of operation and maintenance information, and would widen the application of technical requirements to encompass more work on existing buildings.
I underline the fact that the anticipated maximum construction costs of £10 extra per square metre that those more demanding requirements could place on commercial buildings would be more than offset by future fuel cost savings. I do not deny that there is a significant cost, but, for the benefit of the environment, jobs and, above all, of business and its energy bills, those costs are well worth incurring, given the longer-term gains.

227WH
We hope to make first amendments in the summer, but those changes are just a first step. We want to raise performance standards even further in the next 10 years and grant new powers to regulate building energy performance in use.
My hon. Friend asked how we will achieve those goals and what measures will be used. I shall therefore now say a little about the economic instruments that offer an additional and important lever for change. The most important instrument, of course, is the climate change levy, which will provide a major incentive for greater energy efficiency in the business sector. It will increase awareness and encourage a step improvement in energy management, and I think that that makes it worth it.
As a result of privatisation, the industrial costs of energy, both electricity and gas, have been very substantially reduced. The effect of the reduction is that industrial energy costs as a proportion of total costs are relatively small. Therefore, although I would not say that energy costs are not on the radar screen for a busy departmental manager, senior manager or chief executive, they do not feature very strongly. The whole purpose of the levy is to ensure that those costs register significantly, so that action has to be taken.
The levy package is expected to save at least 5 million tonnes of carbon annually by 2010. As we have to reduce carbon emissions by about 25 million tonnes, that reduction is a substantial part—about one fifth or one sixth—of total savings.
The levy package will be a burden only to those who refuse to seize the opportunities for action and greater competitiveness, and the Government will certainly facilitate those opportunities in the supporting package. We shall, for example, be introducing a 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances scheme to encourage investment in energy saving technologies, such as good-quality combined heat and power and energy efficient lighting systems and boilers.
Awareness is another widely recognised barrier. Far too few people realise the significance of wasted energy in their own homes, in industry and in offices as a cost to them, as damaging to the environment and as a generator of climate change. The Government therefore provide, and will continue to provide, easy access to a wealth of information aimed at encouraging business to become more energy efficient.
Our energy efficiency best practice programme, for example, promotes strategies to motivate the different players in the commercial property sector in a suite of publications setting out best practice in design, construction, occupation and energy services. The publications are really trying to challenge conventional thinking. They are trying, for example, to encourage people to ask themselves whether full air conditioning is really needed. I was present for the debate, last week, when the temperature seemed to be 80 deg; it was certainly clammy. It is absurd to raise the temperature to such a level as it is costly, uncomfortable and wasteful of fuel and it affects the environment.
We have to get people to understand that energy efficiency considerations really have to be taken on board at the design stage. As proper consideration of those factors will create long-term fuel savings, it is in people's own interests to consider them. Another issue is whether building services have user-friendly and appropriate controls.
228WH
How do we get all those points across to people? Reaching out to business by direct contact is fundamental to the programme. We have workshops, seminars, boardroom briefings and site visits, all of which—I hope—offer valuable opportunities to increase awareness in a targeted manner. It is not a matter only of advertisements—whether on radio and television or in newspapers—but of going and talking to people on site. However, there is a vast number of business premises, and getting through to the small and medium-sized enterprises—of which there are between 2 million and 3 million—is extremely difficult.
The topics that are dealt with range from strategic advice on the merits of energy audits to detailed information on energy-efficient lighting options. An excellent example of our hands-on approach is the design advice service which offers tailored energy efficiency guidance for larger construction and refurbishment projects. So far, more than 700,000 sq m of commercial building space has benefited from the scheme. We still have a long way to go, but the measures to achieve the objectives are steadily being put in place. I believe that, in the next 10 years, they can have a major impact.
We are seeking in the best practice programme also to develop voluntary agreements with organisations that can commit to energy saving for specific sectors. We have, for example, an agreement with the very important hospitality sector. Other sectors are beginning to consider whether the approach would work for them, and we are doing our best to get them to respond.
Just as we need to drive forward industry action, of course the public sector has to get its own house—or offices, such as Portcullis House—in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North took us to task on energy efficiency on the Government estate, and there is no doubt that there is plenty of room for improvement there. I should say that we inherited from the previous Government a commitment to reduce energy use by 20 per cent. between 1990 and 2000. The latest information we have is for 1999, and it shows that the reduction had reached 19 per cent. I am sure that, in future years, we can probably double that figure. Nevertheless, we are making progress, and there is something to build on.
Departments have signed up to an action plan that was prepared by the Government construction clients panel and published last year by the Office of Government Commerce under the title "Achieving sustainability in construction procurement". All new construction procurement should have targets for energy consumption that at least meet current best practice. Within three years, all projects are to be reviewed after completion to measure and report on their performance against established energy consumption benchmarks.
I also for my sins chair the Green Ministers Committee, and maintenance of the Government estate in an environmental manner, let alone the application of environmental policy in policy making, is one of its essential roles. The Committee deals not only with energy efficiency, but with waste generation, water consumption and transport impacts. However, there is no doubt that energy efficiency is central to the Committee's work. The application of that work to

229WH
Government offices plays a large part in the figures that we produce annually for each Department and non-departmental public body. We compare those figures with our current targets, and we will be comparing them with the tougher targets that we are setting, particularly on energy efficiency.
I believe that energy efficiency in commercial buildings is an exceptionally important subject, and I shall certainly follow through on the eminently sensible recommendations pressed on me by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham and for Bury, North. Perhaps when I have reviewed the debate, I shall follow it up with a letter setting out in detail precisely how the Government will respond.
We need a major shift in the way that energy is used in commercial buildings; that is absolutely correct. However, I believe that the framework is in place in legislative, fiscal and promotional support. In this pre-Budget period, we always discuss with the Treasury how fiscal and other promotional measures can be introduced, and I am sure that that will continue for many years.
We shall continue to enhance and strengthen the underpinning drivers. However, achieving the potential for energy savings will require a commitment from industry, not only from the small companies but particularly—as we have been discussing today—from the commercial sector. We need a commitment also from the public sector, including central Government, local government and the domestic sector.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham for drawing the issue to the House's attention. The Government agree with the thrust of his argument, and we shall follow through on the recommendations that he has made.

Helme Chase Maternity Unit
12.29 pm
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for attending the debate. I should like to give her a couple of assurances: I do not intend to make any partisan remarks; and I have no criticism of Government policy in respect of Helme Chase. Although I fully recognise that the matter will not be decided by Ministers anyway and that that might be the case indefinitely, there are points that are relevant to them.
The story of the maternity unit is not one of failure or problems in the national health service, but one of a genuine NHS success that had strong cross-party and cross-community support in my constituency. I hope to demonstrate that there is almost complete unanimity among my constituents about the issue, but also that they have some medium and long-term anxieties.
I should like to start with the history and geography of Helme Chase. Until 1993, the Helme Chase maternity unit was located outside Westmorland general hospital. It was originally situated close to where the hospital is now based, in Kendal in my constituency. For many decades—indeed, for most of the 20th century—it was separate from the area's hospitals: Kendal hospital and then Westmorland general hospital. Generations of Westmerians, as those who live in Westmorland like to call themselves, have been born there.
I shall not disguise from the Minister the fact that some of the public feeling about the unit is based on sentiment, but sentiment is not unimportant in such matters. Westmerians would like to know that future generations can be born in Westmorland and not in the slightly more alien territory of Lancashire, to our south.
The geography of the Morecambe Bay health authority area is slightly complicated, as it crosses county boundaries and encompasses a large chunk of southern Cumbria. It includes both the southern lakeland area in my constituency and the Barrow district, which is situated in the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). It also embraces large chunks of north Lancashire. The Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust is now coterminous with the authority area, in which it has three hospital sites. It has one hospital at Barrow, Westmorland general at Kendal and the Royal Lancaster infirmary at Lancaster.
One of the key issues at stake is the concern among people in and around Kendal about whether decisions about their hospital—they take pride in Westmorland general hospital—are taken locally and in the interests of people in south Cumbria. Obviously, the health authority and the trust must consider the wider perspective and community, but that should not be at the expense of the residents of south Cumbria.
As I said, the Helme Chase maternity unit moved only in 1993 into what was then the spanking new Westmorland general. The unit is now within the hospital, but it has maintained its great tradition of being a friendly place to which mothers are happy to go. In contrast with some of the more clinical, less friendly

231WH
and more antiseptic environments of maternity units elsewhere within the health authority area, Helme Chase has the reputation of being a place where there is love, tenderness and care. Given the geography of our part of the world, its accessibility to husbands, grandparents and partners, who can visit the mother before, during and after the birth, is a significant advantage.
If a large number of births are transferred from Westmorland general hospital to Lancaster, the possibility of such visits will greatly diminish. Mothers who live in outlying areas and who might already be some distance from Kendal will be anxious about getting to Lancaster when their time comes. The community health council public meeting held in Kendal 10 days ago was attended by a mother who lives in Windermere, which is in my constituency and is a good 20 to 25-minute journey from Kendal. She was worried about having to travel yet another 30 minutes or so to Lancaster. She said that she was expecting her fourth child and that the previous two had arrived after a labour of only 25 minutes. Her concern about being faced with a 50-minute journey to the local maternity unit is readily understandable, as such loss of time could cause grave difficulties.
As the Under-Secretary knows, the Morecambe Bay health authority is currently in the throes of a consultation exercise. I appreciate that she is not in a position to prejudge the results of that exercise and I would not expect her to do so. Indeed, I make no complaint about the way in which the health authority is conducting the process, as it has done so perfectly properly. It has released a multiplicity of options for public consultation, which will conclude next month. There are three basic options: retention of the status quo; outright closure of the unit; or establishment of a midwife-led unit.
The Under-Secretary may have been briefed on the local anxiety about whether the consultation initiated by the authority includes all the viable options for the unit's future. The answer to that question largely depends on what the definition of a midwife-led unit turns; out to be. The midwives at Helme Chase have a clear view about such a unit: they want it to carry out the same sort of deliveries that are conducted now. Those that are currently dealt with by the unit cover a pretty wide range. Difficult, dangerous and potentially risky deliveries are transferred to Lancaster under present procedures, but deliveries at the unit currently include elective caesareans and induced births. There is some anxiety that those slightly more complicated births might not occur in Kendal under the health authority's preferred option of a midwife-led unit and would instead be transferred to Lancaster.
The concerns are twofold. First, such an option might transfer from Kendal to Lancaster nearly 50 per cent. of births. Currently, about 600 babies a year are delivered in Kendal, but, under the health authority plans, that number could conceivably drop to about 350, meaning the transfer of 250 births out of the area. Secondly, even though it is recognised as unlikely that the health authority will recommend outright closure this year, there is a longer-term concern about the other options in that respect. The introduction of an option that causes the number of deliveries dealt with this year to drop could mean that people come back in five or 10 years'
232WH
time and say, "As most babies in the area are not delivered at Westmorland general hospital, there is now a case for closure."
Sister Anne Carruthers works in the gynaecology ward at Westmorland general hospital. I should be happy to provide the Under-Secretary with a copy of the letter that she sent me, in which Sister Carruthers makes an important point that is relevant to the future of Helme Chase. As I am sure the hon. Lady recognises, many people share the concern expressed in the letter. Sister Carruthers writes about the role of the royal colleges, with whose recommendations I am sure the hon. Lady will be very familiar.
The colleges' recommendations are usually produced for the best possible motives and often result in the raising of standards. That, of course, is not the problem. The difficulty lies in the implication that, in respect of the responsibilities of the various royal colleges, fewer and fewer units throughout the country are acceptable. Time after time, services are moved steadily away from outlying areas and towards central points. I have caricatured the matter, but the caricature has a grain of truth. Ultimately, I think that the royal colleges will be happy only when there is a single hospital somewhere near Birmingham to which all patients in the country are shipped. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister recognises the truth in that assertion.
A balance must be struck. The point made by Sister Carruthers is valid and should be considered not only in the context of Helme Chase, but more widely. She says that there are two sides to the matter. Her letter states:
The consultants tell us that RCOG guidelines stipulate that they should be within half an hour of reaching their patients. That appears to be illogical when looked at from the opposite perspective, because it apparently does not matter how long it takes for patients to reach them—patients who may be travelling from outlying districts.
She puts her finger on the issue, which is that the royal college guidelines are often constructed for perfectly logical and sensible reasons, but are organised from a producer rather than a patient perspective. I shall be interested to hear anything that the Under-Secretary has to say about that issue, as it is relevant not only to south Cumbria, but to the whole of the NHS.
I applaud many of the steps that the Government have taken, not least through NHS Direct, to expand access to the NHS. However, it is important that, whenever possible, we are seen to be following public wishes for an accessible health service. We should not use safety, which is vital, especially in maternity services, as an excuse to provide one giant hospital in the midlands. I appreciate that if it were in the midlands, the Under-Secretary would not suffer as much as some others.
The health authority has categorically stated that its decisions are not prompted by a resource problem. However, I wish to put on record for the Undersecretary and her civil servants that the health authority has occasionally been tempted to cite statistics to show that the delivery costs of Helme Chase and the Morecambe Bay trust in general are among the highest in the country. Such statistics are slightly misleading because they do not take account of the significant number of deliveries to mothers who are not resident in the Morecambe Bay health authority area, but come from further afield, partly because of Helme Chase's

233WH
reputation. I am sure that the Under-Secretary can reassure us that resources will not drive the provision of maternity services in south Cumbria. I should be grateful for such a reassurance.
The Under-Secretary will know that, under the current arrangements, the community health council, which has been considering the issue diligently and carefully, has what could be described as a nuclear option. If it is not happy with the health authority's solution, it can reject it. The matter would then be referred to the Secretary of State. I profoundly hope that that will not happen because it will delay matters and cause greater uncertainty. A solution that attracted strong local support would be far preferable.
If the nuclear option is taken, it will be helpful for Ministers to be aware of some of the background and the strength of local popular support for the unit. I should also be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's comments on the position after the community health councils are replaced. I appreciate that Ministers intend to replace them with an alternative mechanism for assessing local wishes, but I should like to know precisely how it might apply in the case that we are considering.
I promised that I would comment on the cross-party nature of the anxiety about Helme Chase. A march of approximately 3,000 people took place 10 days ago through the small town of Kendal. It was attended not only by me as the local Member of Parliament, but by John Bateson, the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate and Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate. There is genuine support for Helme Chase throughout the community—from farmers, businesses, mothers and midwives, who feel very strongly. Nicola Kaye, a Kendal mother, has started a huge petition, which some 6,000 people have signed to date. More signatures are expected.
Helme Chase constitutes a genuine NHS success story. All hon. Members—the Under-Secretary more than most—receive letters that relate instances of public services that do not always provide exactly what people want. Helme Chase is not an example of that. My constituents regard the maternity unit with huge affection; it would not be putting it too strongly to say that it is loved. That is underlined by the fact that 3,000 people came out to march at short notice on a cold January morning.
I acknowledge that the decision is not currently up to the Government. However, they may have to consider the matter. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can suggest how the Government would hope to respond to the clear public outpouring of support for Helme Chase. I hope that she will say that it is possible for such a much-loved, successful and appreciated service to continue for many years.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on securing the debate on the future of Helme Chase maternity unit. I appreciate that the subject is important to his constituents, and I commend him for making it
234WH
clear at the outset that the issue is not party political but is about meeting the needs of his constituents. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's public statements; he has gone on record long before today to say that he wants the matter to be resolved locally, and not adversarially.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the restructuring of community health councils. The nuclear option, which allows for the decision to be referred to Ministers, is undesirable, especially when the issue can be resolved locally. However, that provision will continue to exist under the new structure. A new element is that the matter will be referred to independent reconfiguration panels. We always want such matters to be resolved locally if possible.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that a debate, at a time when consultation is taking place about the future of a unit, does not allow Ministers to make firm statements; it is an opportunity for us to listen. Debates on maternity have an additional element: women do not wish pregnancy and childbirth to be perceived as an illness. They want childbirth to happen as naturally as possible. The royal colleges sometimes give the impression that the primary function of hospitals is training doctors, not serving patients. We must tackle that.
It is important to ensure that the environment in maternity units is not only clinically safe, but friendly and that relatives have access. Birth should be treated not as an illness but as a family event. It should therefore take place as locally as possible. However, mechanisms must be in place to provide good clinical care quickly. I speak with some passion because I gave birth to both my children in a small unit, which carried out 300 deliveries a year, so I am a great advocate of such units. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that such considerations are taken into account.
As the hon. Gentleman clearly outlined, consultation started on 1 December and concludes on 28 February. A report must then be prepared. It may be ready for the March meeting or the April meeting, and the next steps will depend on the preferred option. Surrounding health authorities have also been consulted and I hope that those areas and their Members of Parliament will contribute to the debate. The hon. Gentleman also rightly said that community health councils could object to the decision. However, we hope that the final decision will be made locally.
Over the past 50 years, childbirth has become much safer for mothers and babies. We must not lose sight of that in our discussions. There has been a continued drive to attract more qualified midwives to the NHS by, for example, persuading them to return to the service by offering free refresher courses, mentoring schemes, flexible working and improved pay structures. The hon. Gentleman is fortunate that his constituency is in such a desirable area that recruitment is not a problem there.
Our success is shown by the fact that figures for infant mortality, perinatal mortality and maternal deaths all show a continuing downward trend. We must not lose that gain. It is safer than ever to have a baby. However, we cannot be complacent. We need to support families and promote the health and well-being of disadvantaged children to give them the best start in life.

235WH
As a Government, we remain fully committed to the principles of women-centred maternity services that offer greater choice, continuity of care and give control to women. The ethos of putting women at the centre of maternity service planning is now firmly embedded in mainstream practice. We believe that further improvements in maternity services can and are being made through wider Government initiatives to modernise the NHS, improve public health and strengthen family life.
Clearly, our policy of putting women at the centre of maternity service planning and offering women informed choices about the type of care that they receive has to run alongside the need for local trusts and health authorities to provide care that is cost effective and clinically appropriate.
It is for local health authorities and trusts to develop effective maternity service provision that takes account of the needs of local people, the evidence of effectiveness and the need for clinical safety. Decisions regarding service provision are best made locally because it is at local level that people's needs and circumstances are known and that services can be tailored to meet those needs.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to having to be born in alien Lancashire. There is undoubtedly some significance in what is written on a child's birth certificate. We should not underestimate that. The word "Essex" appears on both my children's birth certificates. I am not quite sure what they will make of that, as I am now a midlands Member of Parliament. Perhaps they will wonder why they were born in Essex.
Individual trusts and maternity units operate a variety of methods for organising midwives to deliver maternity care, including one-to-one midwifery practice and case load midwifery schemes. It is important to recognise local cultures in terms of what women want. For example, the demand for home births might be higher in some areas than in others. We need to be very sensitive about such issues.
We recognise that, in many cases, women prefer to give birth at small, local, midwife-led units. Indeed, a number of such units throughout the country offer a very effective service to women with low-risk pregnancies. However, the Government would not wish to support one model of maternity service provision in preference to all others.
The report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, "Towards Safer Childbirth", published in 1999, seeks to establish benchmarks for the provision of a standard of care that will offer women a safe and pleasant childbirth experience.
I smiled when the hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged his slightly exaggerated version of what some royal colleges would like to happen, because he chose Birmingham as his hypothetical location. As a Birmingham Member of Parliament, I could not possibly object to such a proposal. However, I accept the point that he made.
Difficulties can sometimes arise, even when midwife-led units may be the preferred option, if, for whatever reason, local midwives do not wish to take on responsibility for leading the unit. It is, therefore,
236WH
important that midwives, local GPs and other professionals work together. It is never easy to make universal comments on this issue.
Mr. Collins: I want to make it clear that the midwives at Helme Chase are enthusiastic about the idea of taking ownership and control of the unit. They would, however, like to do so across a range of services. I am delighted that the Minister said that there is no preferred model. May I take it that the Government—as a general principle; I accept that the Minister cannot be specific—take the view that having a maternity unit in which the midwives are happy with the range of services provided is a good thing?
Ms Stuart: It will not come as a great surprise that I think that any service in which the key professionals who deliver it are comfortable with the framework within which they operate will have better clinical outcomes.
The report acknowledges the need for expert medical advice in the care of women with high-risk or complicated pregnancies. In cases involving difficult pregnancies or pre-term babies, highly sophisticated medical equipment needs to be in place. Sometimes, the appropriate equipment and skills may be available only in certain centres. Tensions naturally arise in such circumstances.
The report also highlights the importance of good working relationships between the multidisciplinary team midwives, obstetricians, anaesthetists—we should not forget them—and paediatricians, so that women receive optimal care and the best outcomes.
The recommendations and audit standards contained in the report will provide health care planners, unit managers and clinical directors with the means to improve standards of care for women in labour. That sits well with the Government's programme to promote high-quality health care and clinical excellence throughout the NHS, setting clear standards for services and delivering them locally through the framework of clinical governance.
I shall now turn to the detailed position in south Cumbria and the history of the proposed changes. In response to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, the changes are not about money or a lack of staff. Nor are they driven by financial or managerial considerations. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Morecambe Bay health authority has been allocated £242 million for 2001–02, an increase of 5.8 per cent. in real terms on this financial year. Furthermore, the income of Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust rose from £111.3 million in 1998–99 to £123.9 million in 1999–2000. I am told that there have been no problems in recruiting midwives at Helme Chase, and that the unit's charter mark has recently been renewed for the second time. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the staff on that renewal, because it represents official recognition of their good work from beyond the local community.
Regarding the proposed changes, it is important to remember that there are maternity units at Furness general hospital in Barrow and at the Royal Lancaster infirmary, as well as at Helme Chase. All three are managed by Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust.
Last summer, Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust advised the local health authority of the findings of a report by an independent steering group on the

237WH
maternity services presently based at Helme Chase. It is generally referred to as the Turnbull report. The trust board had accepted the recommendations of that review, which supported the development of a midwife-led service for the Kendal area. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Turnbull report was centred on Kendal. The health authority, in acknowledging its requirement to ensure the provision of safe and effective services for its entire population, decided to extend the scope of the review to take in maternity services across south Cumbria and Lancaster, with particular emphasis on the changing childbirth criteria of improving flexibility and continuity of care, which I outlined earlier.
The health authority's report sets out three options: the first would be to do nothing; the second would be to cease providing in-patient maternity services in Kendal; and the third would be to introduce an integrated, midwife-led service. Without outlining each option in detail, I shall briefly touch on each one. I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the precise definition of a midwife-led unit. That may need to be taken on board in further discussions, so that all the parties involved talk about the same thing and we do not end up with a consultation in which one group suddenly says, "That is not what we meant by a midwife-led unit."
The first option was to do nothing. However, we would have to take care with such an option as safety and professional standards may not be able to be met. The second option, closing in-patient maternity services in Kendal, would mean that services would be provided at Furness general hospital and the Royal Lancaster infirmary, which would meet the safety and professional standards but limit the degree of choice that local women would receive.
238WH
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the health authority's preferred option is to introduce an integrated, midwife-led service, which is the third option. That would involve Helme Chase continuing to serve the local community as a birth centre. It is argued that the more flexible deployment of midwives envisaged by that plan would bring potential benefits in terms of continuity of care. Whenever possible, a woman would see the same professional throughout her pregnancy, delivery and immediate post-natal recovery.
If that final option were to be approved, I understand that a team of community-based midwives, working closely with GPs, would provide ante-natal, confinement and post-natal care from several centres in the Morecambe Bay area, including Kendal.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned travelling distances. Consultations have taken place with the ambulance trusts, which would provide the relevant services. They are confident that, if any unforeseen difficulties were to arise, there would be no problems with patient transport. They are also confident that any increase in patient numbers could be accommodated, because the hospitals in Lancaster and Barrow would continue to offer the full range of maternity services. The arrangements for home deliveries will remain as at present, but the continued existence of a dedicated in-patient unit nearby would be a reassuring sign for mothers-to-be.
I would like the hon. Gentleman to take away from this debate my reassurance that we have not yet made any decisions. We support his view that the matter should be resolved locally. The option of closing Helme Chase maternity unit does not form part of any option put forward in the consultation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the record of this debate will be read widely by those people who need to hear what has been said today.

Rail Services (Thurrock)
1 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Time is short, but I begin by expressing some well-intended and sincere courtesies—first, to you, Mrs. Michie. You travelled from beautiful Argyll to my constituency a while ago, and that visit was much appreciated. Although there is a great contrast between our constituencies, you will have seen the Lowryesque beauty along the river frontage at Thurrock.
I also welcome my real friend—I do not say that to everybody—the Minister. He and I have collaborated over many years and served on the Transport Committee under the distinguished leadership of the late Conservative Member, Robert Adley, who used the phrase, "Poll tax on wheels," in relation to rail privatisation. I mention that because many of the problems that I shall address have their roots in the absurd rail privatisation pushed through by the previous Administration in the face of criticism from Robert Adley and other Conservative Members who dominated the Transport Committee when the Minister and I were members of it.
I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who represents about a third of the borough of Thurrock and has two c2c railway stations in her constituency. I have six: South Ockendon; Chafford Hundred, which serves the Lakeside shopping centre; Purfleet; Grays; Tilbury; and East Tilbury. This is an aside, not the main thrust of my complaint, but c2c is a daft name for a railway and totally meaningless. It is indicative of the kind of people who are trying to run the service that they chose such an absurd name.
I have been seeking for a long time to initiate this debate and much of what I have to say pre-dates Hatfield, so it is no good the operators, or Railtrack for that matter, using it as an excuse when they read or comment on my observations. I shall also refer to the leasing companies: they, too, are signally failing my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon.
I have a catalogue of complaints—primarily against the rail operator, but also, to some extent, against Railtrack and the leasing companies. I raise them not only as the Member of Parliament representing constituents who are suffering from this service failure, but as a commuter and user of trains myself. I find, as does my council, that we can no longer acquiesce by our silence in abysmal service failure and ripping off the travelling public.
Following a council meeting on 29 November, the leader of the council wrote to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to draw attention to a unanimously agreed motion
to the effect that the woeful record of C2C warranted the immediate removal of its franchise and that an urgent investigation should be conducted into the running of trains on the LTS line.
He continued:
Whilst I appreciate that a franchise cannot be terminated immediately, you will appreciate from the motion the depth of feeling; held by myself and other Members of the Council about the very poor service available to the community in Thurrock.
240WH
The withdrawal of the new 357 Electrostar trains and the return into service of the old stock is an absurdity further adding to the misery of passengers.
He reiterates the view that I share: if and when an opportunity arises to take the franchise away from those operators, the sooner it is taken away the better.
The vein running through all the complaints is that the company simply does not care and does not want the public to have access to it. If hon. Members think that that is an exaggeration, they should study the company letterhead—it does not contain a telephone number. What organisation, except c2c, does not have a telephone number on its letterhead? That is a small example of its general approach to customer communications, and my constituents find, as I do, that even if they can find a number for c2c and try to contact the company, the telephone rings and rings. There is rarely any response.
A constituent wrote to me at the beginning of January saying:
c2c appear to never reply or even acknowledge customer comments forms. I have tried by printer card, letter and e-mail. To date I have 12 items unanswered starting from July…I have however had a reply from Mrs Gill Tiernan—
I understand that she works for c2c—
to a point I raised via Thurrock Council.
Mrs Tiernan has informed me that I cannot expect the trains to run as fast as they did in the 1970s because of the impact of the two new stations. She has failed to mention that the timetable which provided for stopping at West Ham had to be abandoned last year because the delays it was causing were having such a bad effect on performance.
She also failed to note that there are only 2 direct trains via Chafford Hundred in the peak period and therefore Chafford Hundred has very little effect on performance at this time. She also failed to point out when comparing the figures between British Rail and LTS/c2c that British Rail did not have the benefit of the brand new signalling which was installed at the taxpayers' expense and handed over lock, stock and barrel—
by the previous Tory Government—
to the private company only days after it took control!
Last summer, I contacted Bill O'Connor, the c2c operations manager, about the indicator boards all along the line and in particular at West Ham, where I encountered a failure. The boards are often changed after trains have departed, giving incorrect information about the destination of the departing train or one that is about to arrive. The company's failure to communicate was admitted in a letter to another constituent, Mr. B. Newell of Grays, on 8 January. Annette Ayers, the customer relations officer, said:
Station staff are informed of service alterations via a pager system and therefore are only able to make announcements when this information is received although regrettably, in times of severe disruption it is possible for messages to be delayed due to frequent use of the system.
We are aware of the need for accurate and timely information in such times and this matter is being addressed in order that the dissemination of information can be improved.
My constituent Pauline Cridland wrote to me on 2 November saying:
The staff on the platforms are linked by radio to the "white house" at Upminster but the people operating the indicator boards and making the announcements are taking little or no notice of them. Consequently boards show trains as being for destinations they are not, often two boards will show different

241WH
information! To my knowledge last week one board showed a train as being for Tilbury—its first stop was Laindon and in excess of 50 passengers had to make their way back…
right along the system.
That problem is compounded by frequent platform changes, mainly at Fenchurch Street. Severe congestion has caused safety hazards at Fenchurch Street when people have been told to get on a train to a particular destination, only to be informed that the platform has been changed. They either had to return to the overcrowded concourse or find a new train. That happens all too frequently.
On 21 September, I wrote to the same Bill O'Connor to complain about the problems caused by a train cancellation at Tilbury. Communication was totally absent and those of us on the platform were bewildered to see a fast train rush through past Tilbury Town station towards London. It did not stop to remedy the cancellation of the earlier train. When I tackled him about that, he tried to blame Railtrack, saying that it often demands the company to run trains past for operational reasons. I said that that was unacceptable and that I wanted from him documentation as to how often that happened. Mr. O'Connor then conceded that the operators sometimes decided to accelerate a train to pass through a station. I asked for a list showing when Railtrack had demanded that a train rush through stations leaving people on the platform, and how often the operator had made that decision. I got no reply, although I pressed him and pressed him. The letter that I eventually received still did not answer the question, which is indicative of the fact that the operators will blame Railtrack whenever they can. Railtrack may sometimes be to blame, but my view is that operators deliberately try to fudge the issue by blaming others when the failure is theirs.
In October, I complained to the operations manager—wait for it, the same Bill O'Connor—about the fact that Tilbury Town station had no ticket machine on the upside. There was not even a machine dispensing permits to travel. It will not have escaped your notice, Mrs. Michie, that MPs have to have a rail ticket when travelling. Their spouses, too, have discovered that, and it is also true for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. They need and want to buy a ticket. Only last week, however—after I had secured my debate—did the company begin the process of installing the necessary ticket machine. I am told that it is now removing the machine on the downside, which will mean a further delay.
All that represents an abysmal failure on the operators' part to ensure that those who wish to buy tickets can do so, thus avoiding anxiety and embarrassment or missing a train—which often happens, especially if there is a queue at the booking office or if no booking office is open. That, too, often happens. Similar problems have occurred at Grays, where ticket machines have not been working. This Bill O'Connor, the operations manager, is either unable or unwilling to respond to my complaints and those of others, which is quite unacceptable.
My constituent Noel Edwards, who represents the cycling interest, says that c2c is wholly insensitive to the needs of cyclists. He says that the company is overbearing and too rigid, lacking flexibility in regard to the access that it gives cyclists. Because time is limited, I
242WH
will pass my constituent's representations to the Minister, and, obviously, will refer them to c2c. I wanted to mention the matter, because the constituent—very courteously—had written to me about it.
There is another enormously irritating problem affecting those who, in the middle of the night—well, at about nine or 10 in the evening—want to return to Essex, and have to decide whether to travel to Fenchurch Street or Liverpool Street. It is absurd that the arrangements should change at that time of night. Moreover, after Hatfield—this is the one aspect of Hatfield that I shall mention—the system was altered to involve all trains leaving Fenchurch Street. Although I personally welcomed the change, some of my constituents may find it less convenient. The point is, however, that the company did not communicate with its customers—my constituents, and those of other Members—about what was an arbitrary and sudden alteration. We need some certainty in the evenings: we need to know whether we should catch our trains at Fenchurch Street or Liverpool Street. In fact, I think there should be only one terminus, and I hope the Minister will look into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon will probably concentrate on the issue of rolling stock. Having engaged in informal chats with the Minister, I know that he shares my concern, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. The fact is, however, that we have clapped-out slam-door trains, almost as old as me. Not only are they old and decrepit; they often fail, which means reduced accommodation and overcrowding. We now need to blow the whistle: someone is to blame, and someone must pay. We certainly will not tolerate: the situation any longer.
As I have said, this is a mean company. It is so mean that it will not even buy labels to put on its maps of the railway network to show, for instance, that there is a railway station at West Ham. That is so mean! I almost want to treat the company to some labels.
The point is not unimportant. We are talking about a major new station linking the network to the Jubilee line, which c2c will not even advertise on its maps. Furthermore, the station represents an important part of our transport strategy, and was provided at enormous expense by the taxpayer.
In the couple of minutes that remain, I want to raise important issues that are blurred, in that it is not clear whether the operator or Railtrack is responsible. For one thing, Tilbury Town station provides no access for disabled people. At a meeting with the Council, Railtrack and c2c on 12 December, I demanded an immediate remedy.
I should describe the station. All the residential accommodation is on the north side, facing towards Southend; there are no residential properties on the south side, which faces London. Any disabled person wishing to go to London, or to go west to Grays, must travel for a mile to reach the other side of the station. There is a footbridge, but disabled people will not be able to use it. That too is unacceptable.
Before anyone says, "It must have been the same for a hundred years," let me say that that is not so. In the old days there were platform ramps, but those—rightly, in fact—have been removed for safety reasons.

243WH
We need an immediate remedy. I know that the Minister also has responsibility for mobility, and I know that—against his better judgment—he has agreed to visit my constituency soon and to look at the line. In the meantime, however, I hope he will press the operators at least to accept an interim remedy. I stress the word "interim". A bus, which is part of the network, waits for every train arrival at Tilbury Town station to take passengers to what was Tilbury Riverside station, which has now closed. It could be used to convey people from the north side to the south side, where the booking office is—a mile-long journey. We suggested that to c2c, but again there was no response, which I find deeply disappointing.
I am concerned about representations I have received from Mr. B. Sheppard, of East Tilbury residents and tenants association. He drew attention to the repeated failure of the automatic barriers at East Tilbury station, which have caused many delays. We are talking about an isolated community. I use the word "isolated" deliberately: if the road that contains the level crossing were not accessible, the community would be more or less cut off. Apart from the frustration experienced by residents finding barriers closed and apparently unliftable, there are serious problems for the emergency services. The matter has repeatedly been drawn to the attention of Railtrack and, to some extent, that of the operators, but we are not satisfied, and I hope that the Minister will apply pressure.
Let me raise another blurred issue. The late operators of the LTS line built a rather attractive new station at Tilbury, thus improving our environment. We now find, however, that—on land leased by the operators and owned by Railtrack—an unauthorised, illegal advertisement hoarding has been put up in front of the station. Despite being asked by my local authority to remove it, the company is disregarding those representations. It is unacceptable that a so-called responsible organisation should allow its agents to continue their illegal advertising despite requests by the local planning authority. It shows the organisation's disregard for the community.
Time does not allow me to raise the many more issues I should like to raise, but it is interesting to note that following the securing of an Adjournment debate it is possible to get some action after months of representations, on such matters as ticket machines. Yesterday the company's press officer telephoned me—the audacity of it!—asking what issues I intended to raise. He received no response, of course, but in such circumstances people start to panic.
C2c—silly name, as I have said—is a wholly-owned subsidiary of National Express. National Express should be ashamed of the way in which its company is managed. It cannot hide its responsibility, and I will not let it forget that if and when it seeks a franchise for another line, or the renewal of its present franchise.
1.18 pm
Angela Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing the debate—I envy him that—and also on his choice of debate. His forceful manner conveyed the frustration and anger felt by us and our constituents.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving up some of his time to enable me to add weight to his arguments. We are not talking about isolated incidents, or about moaning
244WH
constituents; we are talking about a day-in, day-out grind. People are having to deal with a second-rate service that is entirely inadequate for their needs.
In the last couple of days, my constituent Denise Cooper found that 13 of the 20 train journeys that she had to make to commute to London were delayed. I do not think that my constituents should tolerate that.
After many, many letters to c2c, I asked the director and general manager, Mr. Andrew Chivers, to meet me here at the House of Commons, and he did. We had a long discussion about what kind of service we should expect. The main problem seems to be the inadequacy of the current rolling stock and the fact that the new rolling stock that was ordered was untried, untested and had no track record—pardon the pun. However, it has been bought and paid for by c2c.
I want an assurance from c2c—I am sorry to say that I have not received one—that it is doing all it can to put pressure on Adtranz to deliver the trains that the line needs. This has gone on for more than two years and I am not satisfied that enough pressure is being brought to bear on behalf of my constituents. Following that meeting, I remained deeply dissatisfied.
On 15 December, I received a letter from Mr. Chivers in which he picked up on some of the issues that I had raised at the meeting, including my two local stations where disabled access is extremely poor. He said that he would report progress on new train introduction in mid-January 2001. It is now getting towards late January; the company's timekeeping in terms of keeping a promise to a Member of Parliament is indicative of the way in which it treats the people who pay for an inadequate rail service. If the company cannot respond to me on time, it is no wonder that it cannot run its trains on time.
I do not think it is too much for constituents in Thurrock to ask for a decent train service; a service that they are paying for. Trains are dirty, late and overcrowded. I wonder how long people will have to tolerate this before c2c gets its finger out and does something.
1.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin, as is usual, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail services on the c2c network, formerly known as London, Tilbury and Southend—or LTS—Rail. I am grateful to my hon. Friend—a true friend—for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his many issues of concern. In the course of this debate, my hon. Friend has fully justified his reputation as a most assiduous advocate of his constituents' interests. I agree to his request to visit his constituency and I hope to make arrangements to do so in due course.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) for her vigorous representations on behalf of her constituents. I take seriously the issues that she has raised and I hope to deal with as many of them as possible in the rather constrained period that I have remaining to me in the debate.
The tragic accident at Hatfield and the subsequent widespread disruptions resulting from the imposition of emergency speed restrictions and Railtrack's track

245WH
recovery programme have had huge ramifications for the railways. However, unlike the majority of train operators, c2c has not had to implement an emergency timetable and has managed to operate services pretty much as normal. My hon. Friends would argue that "normal" is not very satisfactory. The company has three speed restrictions in place. I know that Railtrack is working hard to remove all speed restrictions as soon as possible, and it is to be hoped that the remaining speed restrictions on c2c's network will be removed in the coming weeks.
Although c2c passengers have avoided the worst of the disruptions suffered by other passengers in recent months, c2c's performance in general—as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon has made clear—has been far from satisfactory over the last year. In the autumn national passenger survey, only 63 per cent. of passengers were satisfied with their journey and 21 per cent. were dissatisfied. Only 33 per cent. of passengers thought c2c provided value for money. Compared with the 10 other train operators serving London and the south-east, only Silverlink trains scored lower than c2c on value for money.
The company has agreed with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority an action plan to address the concerns that the survey highlighted. My hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that this includes measures to improve communication with passengers, both on train running information at stations and in responding to feedback from passengers. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is monitoring progress with the plan and I hope that tangible improvements will be seen in the near future.
I am pleased that, in recent weeks, there have been improvements in c2c's performance. However, I know that technical problems with new rolling stock introduced last year have caused widespread disruption and overcrowding, particularly on peak services. Passengers who had looked forward to travelling in comfort on new, reliable, state-of-the-art trains are understandably frustrated and disappointed.
Faulty electrics and software problems rendered the new trains unreliable and prone to breakdown. Of the 44 units that were contracted to be in operation by November 1999, only 12 have been introduced. These are currently being used to provide off-peak services only and will not be used for peak services until c2c is confident that they will provide a reliable service.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Alastair Morton, chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, to set up a pan-industry working group to identify and tackle the problems being encountered in bringing new stock into service. Some progress has been made, but clearly there is much more to do. I assure my hon. Friends that Ministers will continue to meet manufacturers and make it clear to them that their current performance in delivering new, reliable stock is simply not acceptable. Manufacturers must redouble their efforts to provide new stock on time and to ensure that new stock is reliable from the word go.
246WH
In the light of c2c's rolling stock delivery problems, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority negotiated with c2c a package of passenger benefits to compensate passengers for the late introduction of the new stock. This included an increase from 44 to 46 in the order of new units and a commitment to procure a second tranche of 26 new four-car trains to be delivered and in service by 30 June 2002 to deal with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—the replacement of c2c's remaining slam-door stock. The company is also committed to extending booking office hours at various stations.
Further passenger benefits were also negotiated in June last year when the shadow Strategic Rail Authority reached an agreement with Prism rail, then the franchisee of c2c, on the restructuring of the group's portfolio of passenger rail franchises. Under the agreement, the c2c franchise is retained through to 2011. Prism committed itself to investing £20.5 million in areas to be agreed with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. In addition, closed-circuit television will be fitted in all of the current order of 46 new trains.
Shortly after that deal was struck, the National Express group agreed to buy out Prism. I am pleased that National Express has undertaken to honour the obligations that Prism entered into and is currently working with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, the Rail Passengers Committee for Eastern England and other local stakeholders to determine the best use of the committed £20.5 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock also raised the issue of the access arrangements for disabled passengers at Tilbury. He may be aware that, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, we have introduced accessibility regulations for new trains to ensure that disabled people, including wheelchair users, are able to travel by rail in safety and reasonable comfort.
I appreciate the serious difficulties that can arise for disabled people who wish to travel from stations where there is no accessible link between the platforms. The provisions of the Act should go some way to improving such access arrangements. Railway stations are covered by part III, which deals with access to goods, services and facilities. Since October 1999, station operators have had to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service; for example, by providing information in Braille to enable disabled people to use a service, and overcoming physical barriers by providing a service by a reasonable alternative method. There is no prescriptive regulation which sets down what is required, but in the case of a station with access to only one platform, it might be judged to involve the use of an accessible taxi to take the passenger between platforms.
From 2004, operators will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide a reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service; for example, by the provision of a ramp to allow wheelchair access to the station.
I regret that I am unable to pursue such matters in greater detail, but I hope that, in my brief remarks, I have been able to give some comfort to my hon. Friends about the planned improvements to rail services in their

247WH
constituencies. Once the new rolling stock is fully introduced and the £20.5 million of additional investment comes to fruition, I am certain that c2c passengers will enjoy a more reliable and comfortable service.
It should not be forgotten that, not so many years ago, what is now the c2c network was frequently described in the press as British Rail's misery line. We hope that those days will be over in the foreseeable future.

NATO, Deterrence and the EU
1.30 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to have attracted the presence of colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am also delighted that we will have the benefit of the views of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), the reasons for whose participation I hope to come to in due course.
I am especially glad to have secured the opportunity to raise the subject of NATO, deterrence and a European Union rapid reaction force. Although I am a new MP, having sat in the House for only four years, I have worked professionally on the issues of defence and deterrence for 20 years. During that long period, there have been three major conflicts—the Falklands conflict of 1982, the Gulf conflict of 1990–91 and the Kosovo conflict, which came to a head in 1999. In each case, substantial forces were involved, and in at least two of those cases the involvement of substantial forces came as a considerable surprise. The Falklands crisis came out of the blue and the Gulf crisis came with very little warning. When the Kosovo crisis finally came, it was after a considerable build-up, but it could then have escalated in ways that we were fortunate to avoid.
Why am I so concerned that the benefits of the NATO alliance and the deterrence that it successfully applied in Europe for half a century are now threatened by the prospect of a European rapid reaction force? The answer lies in the fact that, if it is to work, deterrence requires a concept that is the opposite of that which most people who claim to support deterrence have been advocating for many years: they say that the key to deterrence is uncertainty, whereas I say that the key to deterrence is certainty. Of course it is better to have uncertainty as to whether democracies will or will not respond if attacked than certainty that they will not. Far better than either, however, is certainty that they will respond effectively if attacked.
The key to NATO's success was made up of two components: the nuclear stalemate and the automatic involvement of the United Kingdom and, even more important, the United States in any conflict that would be triggered by an aggressor in Europe. That is what is being imperilled.
When the first world war broke out, the people who engineered it had no way of knowing that in 1917 the massed power of America would be brought to bear against them. When the second world war broke out, the people who engineered it had no way of knowing that in December 1941 the massed power of the American military machine would be brought to bear against them.
I ask the Minister and the Government to consider by how much deterrence would have been increased if the aggressors in August 1914 and in September 1939 had known that the immediate effect of their aggression would be to trigger American and British involvement. We know, for example, that Hitler was most anxious to avoid British involvement. Indeed, he gambled that Britain would not get involved. This is where deterrence requires certainty. The prospect that countries only might react may encourage a gambler to take the risk

249WH
because there is no certainty that they will react. The great achievement of NATO was that, from day one in any conflict that was unleashed in Europe, the Americans and British would react, and react decisively.
We are being drawn towards a situation in which that is being put under threat, even as the Government try to tell us that American involvement remains at the heart of their security strategy. The strategic defence review said in paragraph 18:
We are a major European state and a leading member of the European Union. Our economic and political future is as part of Europe. Our security is indivisible from that of our European partners and Allies. We therefore have a fundamental interest in the security and stability of the continent as a whole and in the effectiveness of NATO as a collective political and military instrument to underpin these interests. This in turn depends on the transatlantic relationship and the continued engagement in Europe of the United States.
However, if the Europeans can, in future, find themselves involved in major conflicts without the involvement of the United States, we are turning the clock back to the uncertainties that allowed dictators and aggressors to chance their arm twice in the 20th century, with disastrous results for humanity.
The Government's response to this is very simple. They say, "You're missing the point." They say, "You claim that the European Union wishes to be involved in intensive war fighting. This is not true because the European Union's rapid reaction force would simply be involved in peace-making and in crisis management." Yet, if one looks back at those two catastrophic wars of the last century, one can see that the first world war, definitely, and the second world war, arguably, grew out of failed attempts at crisis management when the crises concerned spiralled out of control.
Just imagine what might have happened in the Kosovo campaign if one of the key factors that we on the Select Committee on Defence identified as having led to the successful result of that campaign—namely, the attitude of Russia—had been different. The only reason why Russia took a compliant attitude in that conflict was that it was too weak to do anything else. If we had got into a Kosovo-type conflict without the Americans, which is quite possible in terms of crisis management by an EU rapid reaction force, and if the Russians had not been as weak as they were, it could have been a classic recipe for possible escalation to intensive war fighting.
When I challenged the Government on this aspect of the argument, they said that there was no intention to create a separate EU rapid reaction force. I put down a series of questions to the Government on 22 November last; I will refer to three of the answers that I received. When I asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department had made of the effect on deterring conflict of the absence of automatic US involvement in crisis management by the EU, he said:
No state is automatically involved in crisis management, either in NATO or in the EU.
250WH
It must be a pretty low-level definition of "crisis" to escape the conclusion that America and Britain normally are automatically involved in any crisis developing in Europe. The answer continued:
Where Europeans and North Americans wish to act together in a military response to a crisis, NATO will remain the most likely framework. Where NATO as a whole is not engaged, the EU might launch an operation. In such a case the EU would expect to have recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, if necessary.
All those "mights", "ifs" and "buts" bring back the very uncertainties that used to make it worth while for aggressors to chance their arm, because they could not be sure that condign punishment would not immediately follow.
When I asked the Secretary of State what criteria he will apply in distinguishing between military crisis management operations and war fighting, his answer, printed at the same column, was:
The most demanding case is peace enforcement and armed forces deployed for this task must be able to exercise their authority and ensure compliance by the use of force if necessary. But this would fall short of "warfighting", which is normally taken to mean high-intensity conventional warfare.—[Official Report, 27 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 427W.]
But would it? When I asked the right hon. Gentleman what UK forces would be allocated to the proposed rapid reaction force, he said—while denying, as the Government ritually do, that there would be a standing rapid reaction force—that
the UK has identified the pool of forces and capabilities which would enable it to contribute effectively to crisis management operations in support of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, where NATO as a whole is not engaged … In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki—a corps level deployment of up to 60,000 ground troops—the UK component could be around 12,500 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition.—[Official Report, 29 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 640W.]
Any crisis management involving military enforcement that engages forces on a scale of the magnitude that I have just described would clearly have the ingredients for beginning a full-scale war.
In the 1920s and 1930s, many attempts were made to avoid the mistakes made in the run-up to the previous holocaust—the first world war. One technique was the 10-year no-war rule. It was predicted that there would be no conflict during the following decade, so forces could be scaled down. That rule came under attack from a senior official, Sir Maurice Hankey, who had been secretary to the War Cabinet during the first world war and had held many major posts thereafter.
In a previous debate, when I argued against such predictions, I quoted some of Sir Maurice's comments, as follows:
As a nation we have been prone in the past to assume that the international outlook is in accordance with our desires rather than with the facts of the situation … We are also apt to forget how suddenly war breaks out. In 1870, a fortnight before the event, we were not in the least expecting the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. The same was true in 1914. A fortnight after the murder of the Austrian Archduke, a debate took place in the House of Commons on foreign affairs. The European situation was hardly referred to at all. More attention was given to the preparations for the next Peace Conference! … There was no statement made on the subject of the European crisis in Parliament until July 27.

251WH
Sir Maurice concluded:
We really had, at the outside, not more than ten days' warning.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1463.]
There were just 10 days' warning of the first world war—a war that grew out of a crisis that had spiralled out of control. The building up of an alternative to automatic American and British involvement in a future crisis in Europe is putting back together the devil's brew that led to two world wars.
Yesterday, I ran into the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in the Corridor—
Mr. John Bercow: Bad luck.
Dr. Lewis: It was good luck. I mentioned that I was initiating this debate. The Minister looked rather nonplussed and asked who would reply. When I told him that it would be a Defence Minister, he looked a little chagrined but there was not much he could do about it.
In fact, two contradictory policies are currently involved. The policy of the Ministry of Defence is to play down the implications of the rapid reaction force, while the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continues to hope for a world built along peace-loving lines with global collectivism—hopes which have cost us so dear in the past. As I could not quite envisage the Ministry of Defence giving the full picture, I thought that I would invite a contribution from someone who might set out the more traditional approach—wrongly—taken to these questions in the past. As Foreign Office Ministers are unable to be present, perhaps the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson)—who is, as usual, sitting well to my left—will make a contribution. I invite him to do so.
1.45 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Armed Forces will be able to speak for themselves—as will I.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for allowing me to make a few comments during his debate. While he was talking, I was reminded of my affectionate regard and respect for my grandfather, whose generation made heroic sacrifices during the first world war—although there were certain difficulties in persuading them not to keep re-fighting it for the rest of their lives. I have similar feelings about arguments about deterrence.
I fully support the Government's proposal that this country should commit itself to involvement in the European rapid reaction force. A degree of honesty is reflected in the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman; they recognise the fact that all major conflicts—probably for the rest of this century—will be people-solved and not solved by military hardware. If Britain has to make a commitment to be part of that process, I welcome it.
252WH
We should also take the opportunity of stating that the real challenge is to move from a rapid reaction force to an extended commitment to rapid, proactive peace-building with our European partners. I say that because there are real dangers that in the new US Administration there will be a retreat from the internationalist terms which have previously been used and which the Minister may also use.
I think that the United States will retreat into a military strategy based on long-range retribution rather than long-term reconstruction. It will be up to us and our European allies physically to construct the basis of peace and stability in Europe, in which the notion of deterrence will be that we have too much in common to risk going to war, rather than that there is too much dividing us for deterrence to count. Will the Minister not only endorse policies that support a rapid reaction force, but put them into the context of the way in which they might be undermined by signing up to a commitment to the United States national missile defence programme? That, more than anything, threatens to divide and destabilise us in Europe.
It is highly unlikely that our European allies will sign up to the NMD as a protection for them, us or anyone else. NMD is likely to be deeply divisive. Who is it supposed to deter? It will not deter the people who planted a bomb at the World Trade Centre; it will not deter the bin Ladens of this world. If they have a missile or a nuclear device to deliver, they are more likely to do so in a suitcase than by means of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
NMD is likely to force Russia and China into a new defence coalition and to reopen the nuclear arms race. It will make Britain a front-line target. We would be the only point that needed to be knocked out in order to remove the satellite communication warning bases on which the United States would rely. NMD threatens to turn the United Kingdom into kamikaze kingdom—we would be doing suicide runs for an act of international folly to which we should not sign up. I hope that the Minister will not only reinforce and reiterate the understanding that, in a European theatre, peace, stability and deterrence will be delivered by people rather than by military threats, but agree that—as I cautioned in the House recently—we should be ill-advised to join the Leader of the Opposition and the President of the United States in forming a "Dumb and Dumber" coalition in pursuit of the Armageddon vote. That will not provide Britain with security; it will not deter anyone. What it is likely to do is to make us a target and the world a more uncertain and destabilised place. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that is not the direction that the Government intend to take.
1.50 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for initiating this debate, and, not least, for revealing the entente cordiale between the right of the Conservative party and the Campaign group in the Labour party, but I have to ask him, "Was that it?" His

253WH
main contribution was to conjure up ghosts and ask hypothetical questions—he even referred to the devil's brew—but he then affected to be frightened by it all. The debate provides the opportunity to correct much of the misreporting in the press on NATO and European defence, much of which has been inaccurate and misleading.
I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that, in the time available for my reply, I will not be able to go into detail on national missile defence, except to reinforce and reiterate—to use his words—that we have had no approach from the United States. The United States has not yet produced a policy; nor has it approached us for our comments. We would properly await that; we would obviously have to consider an approach from such a serious ally.
Much of the misunderstanding about NATO involves wilful mischief making. The reporting of new US Secretary of State Colin Powell's sensible comments on the NATO-EU relationship, for example, was selective and taken out of context. I hope that what I am about to say will correct some of the half-truths that have gained wider, though illegitimate, public currency.
The situation is simple. NATO continues to be the cornerstone of our security. The United Kingdom is a leading member of NATO, and our forces make a key contribution to the alliance. Since the Attlee Labour Government played a key part in the foundation of the alliance in 1949, Britain and NATO have been indivisible. This Government are also wholly committed to NATO, and to European defence.
I hope that that clarifies the situation for hon. Members. I could not express more strongly the Government's commitment to the alliance—not only in words but in deeds as well. It is regrettable that some Conservative Members consistently try to play politics with national security. The allegation that our commitment to NATO is weakening could be damaging—not to the Government, but to our relationship with allies and our reputation abroad. Given sufficient time to take root, such false allegations could damage NATO itself. Fortunately, there is considerable defence and security experience in the new US Administration, who are able properly to evaluate reality. Let us consider the North Atlantic alliance as it stands in 2001–10 years after the end of the cold war. It has never been in better shape. Rumours of NATO's demise, which were commonplace as the Berlin wall collapsed, turned out to be greatly exaggerated. Much has been said about NATO deterrence. Of course NATO's core business for more than 40 years has been successfully to keep the peace. Without it, the Euro-Atlantic area could never have enjoyed the peace, freedom and prosperity that it has had for the past half a century.
The alliance's capacity to deter rests on article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty. That goes to the heart of what the hon. Member for New Forest, East said. Article 5 states that an armed attack against one or more allies is
254WH
considered an attack against all. It rests on the cohesion of the alliance as it responds to any challenge. It also rests on a range of military capabilities, both conventional and nuclear, sufficient to convince a would-be attacker that he would have more to lose than to gain.
I assure hon. Members that article 5, on collective defence, continues to form the bedrock of the alliance, and the Atlantic dimension to NATO is vital to that. The US has long recognised the centrality of European security to its own, as we recognise the essential nature of the US commitment to us.
The end of the cold war meant that the alliance had to change, and it did so more effectively than anyone could have anticipated. Who would have predicted in 1989 that, a decade hence, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic would be full members of NATO? Who would have predicted then that alliance forces would be engaged in forging peace in the Balkans, or that an alliance born of the cold war would become so adept at coping with the current situation? NATO continues to adapt; the world is changing fast, so must the alliance. It must be even more flexible, even better able to respond to a wide range of crises and other demands—often on a short time scale, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East says.
The defence capabilities initiative, announced at the Washington summit in 1999, is working to make good the shortfalls in capabilities across the alliance. NATO is taking forward the 58 DCI decisions, to ensure that the alliance has the capabilities that it needs for future operations. NATO's force structure review is at a crucial stage. The force structure that emerges from the review will give full effect to the capability improvements sought by DCI. It will provide the alliance with a menu of headquarters and forces, at graduated readiness, to deal with the range of contingencies. Through the "Partnership for Peace" programme with the former Warsaw pact countries, NATO is also helping defence reform and restructuring in the 29 partner nations, and many are making remarkable progress.
What of the European defence dimension, which has recently—and yet again today—caused such an outburst of ill-informed speculation? How does it relate to NATO? The linkage could not be closer. Let us not forget that 11 members of the European Union are also members of NATO. Both organisations share the aim of peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. They are not competing organisations; they are complementary.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Spellar: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South did not leave me much time.
The recent work on European defence is nothing fundamentally new. At Maastricht in February 1992; at Petersberg in June 1992; at Berlin in 1996; at Amsterdam in 1997; and at Washington in 1999—conferences covering both the current and previous Administrations—the member states agreed to the foundations of the policy that we are now implementing.

255WH
European Union member states have always stated that the new developments in European security and defence had to be compatible with those of NATO, and would respect the obligations of EU allies to the alliance. What we are doing now represents a natural progression of Maastricht, Berlin, Amsterdam and Washington. What we are doing now remains faithful to the principle of compatibility with NATO; enhances and strengthens NATO; and ensures the continued vitality of the transatlantic link.
Britain has played a leading role in those developments. In doing so, we have ensured that the focus remains on the key issue, which was identified not only here, but in Washington: improving European nations' military capabilities. The first step to improving military capabilities was made at the Helsinki European Council meeting, when the EU nations signed up to the concrete target known as the headline goal. Following that meeting, defence planning experts from the member states, with support from NATO, developed the headline goal into a statement of requirements.
In November, the member states and other European partners identified the type and level of forces that they are willing to make available, and from which elements could be assembled, on a case-by-case basis, for crisis management missions, and the hon. Member for New Forest, East drew attention to the details. That did not commit us to a permanent European rapid reaction force; nor did we take the first steps towards a European army. That is not just a question of semantics, as some
256WH
appear to suggest, but a fundamental point. The report of the French presidency to the Nice European Council stated:
This does not involve the establishment of a European Army. The commitment of national resources by Member States to such operations will be based on their sovereign decisions.

Dr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene, he should have taken up less time earlier.
European Union member states have now collectively identified where their military capability is lacking. The key areas are the enabling capabilities, such as strategic lift, and availability, deployability, sustainability and interoperability.
NATO is strong because the commitment of individual nations is strong. The United Kingdom has demonstrated, time and again, that our commitment to NATO is absolute. Our security depends on it, and we would not do anything to endanger that. The EU defence dimension is about Europe doing its bit. That is what I do not understand about the current frenzy. Why do critics of the Government's policy think it wrong for Europe to do its fair share? We want a strong alliance and a strong Europe. We want the EU and NATO to form a mutually reinforcing strategic partnership, but we want NATO to be at the heart of our defence and Britain to be at the heart of both Europe and NATO. What could be clearer than that?
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on pay and conditions of the clergy. [144810]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Pay and conditions vary slightly from diocese to diocese but the national average stipend for clergy of incumbent status as at July 2000 was £16,480. In addition, clergy receive free accommodation or a housing allowance, membership of a non-contributory pension scheme and should receive full reimbursement of all working expenses.

  Church Property
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what restrictions are placed on the sale of church property in inner urban areas. [144812]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners normally impose covenants on the new owner of a redundant church restricting its use to that approved and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, the disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition. When a parsonage is sold there would normally be covenants to protect any adjacent church land.

  Agricultural Rents
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what the Commissioners' policy is in respect of agricultural rents on church-owned land. [144814]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  As a charity, the Commissioners are required to seek the best returns on their assets for the benefit of the Church of England clergy, serving and retired. They also seek to act as responsible landlords. In the case of agricultural tenants, the Commissioners fully recognise the crisis in farming and where there is hardship will consider how best to help. This is done on a case by case basis and tenants are free to discuss their difficulties with agents or staff.

  Vicarages and Rectories
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the sale of vicarages and rectories. [144815]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  There are some 7,800 parsonages in England. During the last five years for which figures are available, a yearly average of 97 parsonages were sold, 42 purchased and 18 built.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the number of redundant churches. [144816]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  1,623 Church of England churches have been declared redundant since 1 April 1969. However, the rate of closure has been falling and only 16 churches were declared redundant in 2000. Some 16,000 parish churches remain in use throughout England.

  Dismissed Clergy (Pensions)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the pension entitlement of dismissed clergy. [144817]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Anyone who ceases to be in service which is pensionable under the clergy scheme, for whatever reason other than retirement, is entitled to deferred benefits payable at age 65. The pension and retirement lump sum are calculated by reference to the period of pensionable service actually completed and pensionable stipend at the date of leaving. The benefits are revalued to age 65 in line with increases in the pensionable stipend. Once in payment, the pension is increased annually on the same basis as all other pensions in payment under the scheme.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress made by the Accelerating Access Initiative facilitated by UNAIDS. [146248]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) is making good progress on Accelerating Access to HIV/AIDS-related care and treatment. Over 20 countries have expressed interest in participating. Senegal and Uganda have negotiated significantly lower prices for antiretroviral medicines for their national HIV treatment programmes.

  There has been greater transparency of both the acceleration process in general, and of indicative prices in particular. Although progress is being made, much more needs to be done, both in terms of transparency in prices from suppliers, but also in respect of further discounts on prices. The Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) study will further contribute to increasing access to HIV/AIDS care and treatment.

  However, we must all remain clear that the complexity and toxicity of treatment and the weakness of health systems in many developing countries mean that such initiatives will have a limited impact.

  Disability Projects
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many projects whose principal focus was disability were funded by her Department in the last 12 months; what was the total sum thus expended; and what percentage of her Department's project finance that total represented. [146387]

  Clare Short
  Forty-two such projects were being funded by my Department in the last 12 months, calendar year 2000. The total sum spent through these activities was £58,078,800.

  Figures for total DFID programmes for the same period are not available. However, the figure for the last complete financial year (1999–2000) is £2,513,812,000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Byers Committee
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the Byers Committee. [146763]

  Mr. Byers
  No Committee of this name exists.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make a formal response to "Regulating Cyberspace—Better Regulation for E-commerce" published on December 2000 by the Better Regulation Task Force. [146854]

  Ms Hewitt
  The deadline agreed with the Better Regulation Task Force for submitting the formal Government response is 23 February 2001.

  Thousand

  Users of SBS services

  Q1 April-June 2000–01

  Q2 July-September 2000–01

  Local delivery, 0–49 employees (EC definition of a small business)1

  78.0

  80.5

  Local delivery, 50+ employees including no size information

  27.0

  23.9

  Local delivery, individuals1

  40.7

  37.6

  Nationally delivered services1,2

  4.2

  6.5

  Gateway to SBS services call centre2

  10.1

  8.3

  1 Only one use per business is recorded during each quarter.

  2 Breakdowns between individuals and business, and business size are not available.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Small Business Service has met its operational targets for(a) establishing an Index of Regulation on small business and (b) reviewing business support services and publishing the results. [146502]

  Mr. Byers
  The Small Business Service has studied the issue of the Index of Regulation and carried out preliminary consultations internally and externally. These highlighted a number of issues that need to be resolved before a decision can be taken on how to create an index. The SBS review of business support was issued as a consultative document on 2 October 2000. A revised document, taking account of comments received, was published on the internet www.businessadviceonline.org on 22 December 2000.

  Fireworks
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many successful prosecutions have taken place under the Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 with respect to(a) sales of aerial shells, aerial maroons, bangers, mini-rockets and fireworks of erratic flight to the public and (b) sales of fireworks to under 18-year-olds. [146681]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held by the Department and could be obtained only by incurring disproportionate costs.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the percentage of customers who were satisfied with performance of Small Business Service in each quarter since April 2000. [146503]

  Mr. Byers
  An independent survey undertaken for SBS by MORI in the first quarter of this financial year (April-June 2000) showed that 74 per cent. of all users of locally delivered business support services were satisfied or very satisfied.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) individuals and (b) small businesses have used Small Business Service services in each quarter since April 2000. [146504]

  Mr. Byers
  The table shows a breakdown of total SBS usage. Data are available for Quarters 1 and 2 2000–01. In addition to the usage data given, on average 27,000 hits were received per day (April-June 2000) on the SBS website.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey about the regional implications of building the Ilisu Dam; and what regional support there is for the project beyond that of the Turkish Government. [145071]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not yet had any discussions with the Governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey about the regional implications of building the Ilisu Dam.

  We are of course aware that the Governments of Syria and Iraq (via the Jordanian Embassy) and the Arab League have expressed concern about the dam. When my

  503W
  right hon. Friend published the two reports which we commissioned on this project in December 1999, he also made it clear that before a decision is made on the availability of ECGD support, we will need to be satisfied on a number of conditions, including that of the downstream flow of the Tigris. My officials are in touch with the Turkish authorities regarding these conditions.

  A4E
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Hull Area Advice Centre Ltd. and its equivalent in Grimsby and Scunthorpe, the Hull Branch of the Federation of Small Businesses and the Humberside District Society of Chartered Accountants were among those organisations approached by A4E when applying for the small business links franchise for Humberside. [146429]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]The award of contracts for local delivery of Business Link services is an operational matter for the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend with his response.

  Letter from David Irwin to Mr. Kevin McNamara:
  I have been asked by Stephen Byers to respond to the Parliamentary Question you have tabled concerning the Small Business Service's decision to make Action for Employment (A4E) the preferred bidder to deliver the new Business Link service in Humberside.
  In the Action for Employment bid to run the SBS Business Link in Humberside, there was no mention of contact with the Hull Area Advice Centre and its equivalent in Grimsby and Scunthorpe, the Hull branch of the Federation of Small Businesses or the Humberside District Society of Chartered Accountants.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Treasure Annual Report
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish the Treasure Annual report 1998–99. [147199]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Annual Report covering the operation of the Treasure Act 1996 for the period from 24 September 1998 to 31 December 1999 was laid before Parliament earlier today.

  The Report is being launched tomorrow morning.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid by each of his Department's administrative areas to(a) the elderly, (b) people with long-term illness or disability, (c) families, (d) unemployed people, (e) children and (f) others in Scotland in each of the last 10 years, indicating in each case the percentage of the budget spent on each group. [145674]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, for each local authority, the total amount saved in benefit expenditure in the most recent year arising from anti-fraud initiatives; what this figure was as a percentage of the total expenditure on social security benefits administered by each local authority; and what his aggregate estimate is for Great Britain. [146318]

  Mr. Rooker
  We aim to ensure that all our anti-fraud initiatives are effective in combating fraud and error. It is not always possible to quantify the precise savings of some measures as they are often designed to prevent fraud occurring in the first place rather than detecting fraud after the event.

  However, the weekly benefit savings scheme provides a partial measure of benefit fraud based on what local authorities have detected. A table providing the information requested expressed in terms of weekly benefit savings for the most recent year available, 1998–99, was placed in the Library as part of my answer to the hon. Member on 9 June 2000, Official Report, column 409W.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Ms Williams of Tate and Mrs. Gosling of Chipping Sodbury, whose national insurance numbers have been supplied, will receive their Winter Fuel Payments for winter 2000. [146479]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 22 January 2001:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when Ms Williams of Tate and Mrs Gosling of Chipping Sodbury, whose national insurance numbers have been supplied, will receive their Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) for winter 2000.
  Ms Williams' WFP for 2000 was automatically sent to her home address and would have been delivered before Christmas 2000. If she has not received this payment she should contact the local Benefits Agency office who will take the necessary replacement action.
  Technical problems prevented Mrs Gosling from receiving her WFP for 2000 automatically, therefore, the payment has been issued clerically and will be delivered by 27 January 2001. Corrective action will be taken to ensure payment for 2001 will be sent on time.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his reasons are choosing 12 December 2000 as the qualifying date for the winter fuel allowance. [146992]

  Mr. Rooker
  The date of 12 December 2000 has no relevance to the payment of the Winter Fuel Payment.

  To enable the right payments to be made before Christmas and avoid the Christmas post various processes need to be completed. These require a qualifying week of 18–24 September 2000.
  505W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what complaints he has received regarding the clarity of Part 2 of the claim form for Winter Fuel Payment; and if he will make a statement. [146611]

  Mr. Rooker
  The helpline dealt with a number of people requiring help, but details are not recorded separately. We are currently designing a new set of forms for 2001. If the hon. Member has a particular aspect in mind perhaps he will write to me.

  NIRS2 (Stakeholder Pensions)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implications of the continuing NIRS2 problems for the implementation of stakeholder pensions. [146349]

  Mr. Rooker
  Stakeholder pensions are on target for introduction in April 2001. We do not anticipate that this will be affected by the NIRS2 computer system.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report, columns 78–79W, what the average incomes of pensioner households for the United Kingdom were in each of the last four years for which figures are available. [146339]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available for the United Kingdom. Information for Great Britain is shown in the table.

  Average net income before housing costs, Great Britain

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  All Pensioners: Mean

  174

  184

  186

  192

  All Pensioners: Median

  136

  145

  146

  148

  Pensioner Couples: Mean

  246

  265

  267

  272

  Pensioner Couples: Median

  194

  209

  209

  214

  Single Pensioners: Mean

  129

  133

  136

  141

  Single Pensioners: Medians

  111

  115

  117

  118

  Notes:

  1. All incomes are in £ per week and are at July 1998 prices.

  2. Pensioners are defined as single people over State Pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State Pension age.

  3. Estimates are based on survey data and therefore subject to sampling error. In particular, comparisons over short periods of time should be treated with caution, and regarded as only a broad indication of the trend.

  Source:

  Family Resources Surveys.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 80W, on pensioner incomes, if he will reproduce the table disaggregated by age group for (a) pensioners aged 70 and under, (b) pensioners aged 71 to 75, (c) pensioners aged 76 to 80 and (d) pensioners aged over 80 years. [146889]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.
  506W

  Proportion of pensioners dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income by age group, 1998–99

  Percentage

  All ages

  Aged 70 and under

  Aged 71 to 75

  Aged 76 to 80

  Aged over 80 years

  Single pensioners

  60

  51

  57

  62

  71

  Pensioner couples

  35

  28

  34

  47

  49

  All pensioners

  50

  40

  47

  57

  67

  Notes:

  1. Income is defined as gross (pre-tax) income.

  2. Pensioners are defined as single people over state pension age (65 for men and 60 for women) and couples (married or co-habiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  3. Pensioner couples are allocated to age category based on the age of the man.

  4. Estimates should be treated with caution since they are based on small sample sizes and are subject to sampling error.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on the state pension, how many(a) single pensioners in receipt of the basic state pension and (b) pensioner couples in receipt of the basic state pension are not entitled to the full value of the appropriate basic state pension. [146890]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the rate of the basic state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland in each of the next five years. [146088]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]The information is in the table.

  The cost of increasing the level of the basic state pension to the level of the MIG from April 2001 for Great Britain, and for Scotland

  £ billion

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Cross

  Net

  Gross

  Net

  2001–02

  8.2

  6.3

  0.7

  0.5

  2002–03

  8.6

  6.7

  0.8

  0.6

  2003–04

  9.3

  7.3

  0.8

  0.6

  2004–05

  10.2

  8.1

  0.9

  0.7

  2005–06

  11.1

  8.8

  1

  0.7

  Notes:

  1. Costs are given in £ billion to the nearest £0.1 billion in constant 2000–01 prices.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by GAD.

  3. Net costs are given after income related benefit savings as estimated by the Policy Simulation Model.

  4. Costs for Northern Ireland are not included.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired pensioners living in the Tooting constituency qualify for the minimum income guarantee. [146497]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on 18 January 2001,Official Report, column 386W.
  507W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign will come to an end; and when the final results will be made public. [146350]

  Mr. Rooker
  We expect to have the results form the 2000 campaign in the spring.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average duration in each of the last three years was of the(a) industrial injuries disablement benefit tribunal cases and (b) appeals against tribunal decisions; and if he will make a statement on trends in the length of cases in years. [145753]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Stakeholder Review
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes to make to the stakeholder pensions regulations. [147207]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Stakeholder Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI2001/104) have been laid today. Copies are available in the usual way and the regulations will also be available on the internet at www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk. The regulations include changes needed to allow certain types of scheme to register with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. A further set of amendments to the Stakeholder Pension Schemes Regulations 2000 will follow shortly.

  Pension Rights (Part-time Workers)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the time scale for the House of Lords judgment on the back-dating of part-time workers' pension rights. [146897]

  Mr. Rooker
  The House of Lords considered the case relating to time limits for granting retrospective membership of occupational pension schemes on 24 July 2000. However, we do not know the precise date when their judgment will be handed down.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if levels of Income Support limits for people in care homes will be uprated in line with increased Department of Health limits for charges. [146990]

  Mr. Bayley
  No. Local authority support is not relevant for the purposes of setting Income Support (IS) entitlement. From 2002, those cases which remain on IS will transfer to local authority responsibility.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants at the latest available date have preferred rights under the Income Support scheme; and if this trial can be broken down on a(a) regional and (b) constituency basis. [145694]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Information on Income Support claimants in residential care or nursing homes with "Preserved Rights" by Government Office Region is in the table.
  508W
  It is not possible to quote figures for Preserved Rights at constituency level from the 5 per cent. sample as the numbers concerned are too small.

  Preserved Rights Income Support claimants as at August 2000

  Thousand

  Government Office Region

  Number of claimants

  All Great Britain

  71.9

  North East

  2.7

  North West

  9.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.7

  East Midlands

  5.1

  West Midlands

  5.7

  East

  5.0

  London

  4.8

  South East

  13.4

  South West

  10.7

  Wales

  3.3

  Scotland

  4.9

  Notes:

  1. Government Office Region figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Government Office Region figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands. Total may not sum due to rounding Constituency data are rounded to the nearest five cases.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000 which is a point-in-time survey based on a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support claimants.

  Motability
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much funding the Government provided to Motability in each year since it was founded, broken down into(a) the equipment fund, (b) the administration fund and (c) any other payments. [146346]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is as follows:

  Details of funding allocated to Motability since the scheme's inception

  £000

  Mobility equipment fund/drivers fund

  Administration

  Other

  1977–78

  —

  12

  —

  1978–79

  —

  168

  —

  1979–80

  —

  229

  —

  1980–81

  —

  290

  —

  1981–82

  —

  310

  —

  1982–83

  —

  333

  —

  1983–84

  —

  336

  —

  1984–85

  —

  348

  —

  1985–86

  —

  517

  —

  1986–87

  —

  660

  —

  1987–88

  —

  682

  —

  1988–89

  —

  780

  —

  1989–90

  —

  516

  15,000

  1990–91

  —

  1,112

  —

  1991–92

  1,000

  1,797

  —

  1992–93

  1,000

  1,835

  —

  1993–94

  2,000

  2,085

  —

  1994–95

  3,000

  3,940

  —

  1995–96

  3,000

  4,069

  —

  1996–97

  3,000

  4,488

  —

  1997–98

  3,000

  4,646

  —

  1998–99

  3,000

  4,646

  —

  1999–2000

  4,000

  3,897

  —

  2000–01

  5,700

  2,200

  —

  1 Interest-free loan to establish the Tenth Anniversary Trust

  509W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra resources he will make available to Motability as a result of the extension of higher rate mobility to three and four-year-olds. [146358]

  Mr. Bayley
  About 6,000 children are estimated to gain from the extension of the higher rate Motability component to three and four-year-olds at annual cost of £15 million. They will be able to take the cash benefit or use it to pay for a standard vehicle through the Motability main scheme. Those that require an adapted vehicle will be able to make application to the Motability Equipment Fund (MEF), administered on behalf of the Government by Motability.

  From a base of £2 million per annum, an additional £2.4 million was made available to the MEF from 2000–01, and from 2001–02 an extra £1 million per annum is being provided which, with additional contributions from Motability's Tenth Anniversary Trust, is expected to meet overall demand over the next three years.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners living in poverty there were, broken down by five-year age group, in the latest year for which figures are available. [146313]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no single measure of poverty. The annual "Opportunity for All" reports include a range of indicators we are working to.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of 999 calls placed to the Ambulance Service was in each quarter of the last three years in each NHS region. [141561]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Information about the number of 999 calls to National Health Service ambulance trusts in each NHS region for each of the last three years is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 1999–2000". Copies are available in the Library and on the website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0014.htm.

  Electronic Health Records
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways(a) patients and (b) patient groups are involved in pilot projects for the development of electronic health records. [144701]

  Ms Stuart
  A key component of the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme, which was launched in November 1999, was the inclusion of patient representatives in the selection of the sites. The National Health Service Information Authority (NHSIA) has encouraged the sites to involve their own patient communities through appropriate local mechanisms. In some instances this has involved condition-specific patient groups or patient representatives on project boards.
  510W
  To support this process the NHSIA has appointed Marlene Winfield as Head of Stakeholder Relationships: Patients and Citizens, to consult national patient groups in order to ensure an appropriate level of patient involvement in the programme at both national and local levels.

  Some sites have specific objectives in relation to involving patients, and have conducted patient surveys of attitudes to sharing information, confidentiality, the electronic health record, patient access and patient-held records and these results will be shared.

  In addition, a project involving two general practices is also being supported by the NHSIA in the development and implementation of the electronic health record. The general practitioner's practices involved in the project are Hadfield Health Centre in Derbyshire and Bury Knowles Health Centre in Oxford, and are exemplars in their involvement of patients within the practice. The practices are exploring issues around patient self-monitoring and access to the electronic record at the time of consultation; use of electronic records and their migration to electronic and hand-held patient information integrated into the record.

  Hospital Standards (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals in Devon and Cornwall which failed to meet standards of basic hygiene according to the recent survey. [145365]

  Mr. Denham
  All hospitals in Devon and Cornwall achieved good or reasonable standards of hygiene in our initiative to improve standards of cleanliness in hospitals.

  Hospitals in the South West Region are implementing action plans to improve standards of cleanliness and our continuing programme of work will ensure that these standards are maintained in the future.

  Mr. Jim Norris
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the case of Mr. Jim Norris of Fife Health Board; and what estimate he has made of the implications of this case for(a) health authorities and (b) patients in England and Wales. [145692]

  Ms Stuart
  This is a matter for the Scottish Executive Health Department and does not set a precedent for patients in England and Wales. There are no implications for health authorities and patients in England. Issues relating to Wales are for the Welsh Assembly.

  Fuel Costs (NHS)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost of petrol to the NHS for each of the past three years. [145878]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not possible to calculate the cost to the National Health Service of petrol over the last three years.

  Ambulance Response Targets
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if an ambulance authority will be deemed to have met the eight minute target time for an emergency if attendance is by a volunteer under the first responder scheme. [145530]
  511W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Yes, providing any volunteer in a first responder scheme is equipped with a defibrillator, trained in basic life support and acting as part of an ambulance service's response system. A fully staffed and equipped ambulance must also arrive within 14 minutes in urban areas or 19 minutes in rural areas. What matters is that patients with life-threatening conditions or injuries get an emergency response as quickly as possible. Clinical evidence proves conclusively that early defibrillation and resuscitation saves more lives. Achievement of the eight minute target could save 1,800 lives each year in people under 75 years suffering acute heart attacks.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of deep vein thrombosis have been recorded in each health authority in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; and how many there were in the preceding five years. [146095]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The table shows the number of admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England in 1995–96 to 1999–2000 by health authority of residence for the diagnosis phlebitis and thrombophlebitis of other deep vessels of lower extremities.

  The information relating to Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Herceptin
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the prescription rate of herceptin is in the(a) North of England, (b) south-east of England, (c) United Kingdom and (d) rest of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [145935]

  Ms Stuart
  The drug received its marketing authorisation on 28 August 2000, and information about its use is not yet available. We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to conduct an appraisal of Herceptin (trastuzumab) and vinorelbine for breast cancer. We expect NICE to issue guidance this summer.

  NHS Pay
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the real increase was in(a) nurses' pay and

  Average daily number of beds in wards open overnight, NHS trusts and units in Somerset Health Authority area and England, 1985 to 1999–2000

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  Somerset Partnership NHS Trust

  Somerset DHA

  Total for Somerset HA area

  England

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  3,219

  3,219

  325,487

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  3,121

  3,121

  315,715

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  2,951

  2,951

  297,341

  1988–89

  —

  —

  —

  2,742

  2,742

  282,895

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  2,521

  2,521

  270,309

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  2,429

  2,429

  255,479

  1991–92

  559

  1,024

  —

  646

  2,229

  242,677

  1992–93

  508

  998

  —

  571

  2,077

  232,201

  1993–94

  464

  955

  391

  —

  1,810

  219,476

  1994–95

  445

  945

  441

  —

  1,831

  211,812

  1995–96

  418

  939

  431

  1,788

  206,136

  512W
  (b) ancillary staff pay for each of the periods (i) 1978–79 to 1982–83, (ii) 1982–83 to 1986–87, (iii) 1986–87 to 1991–92, (iv) 1991–92 to 1996–97 and (v) 1996–97 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [144596]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The table details the real-terms increases in pay for nurses and ancillary staff between 1985–86 and 2001–02.1985–86 is the earliest year for which comparable data are available.

  Percentage

  Real increase

  Nurses and midwives

  Ancillary staff

  1985–86 to 1986–87

  5.1

  2.9

  1986–87 to 1991–92

  13.9

  1.8

  1991–92 to 1996–97

  3.2

  1.2

  1996–97 to 2001–021

  6.5

  4.1

  1 The pay offers for 2001–02 have been included although they are still to be formally accepted

  The increases have been calculated using pay settlement data for each year. Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are estimates as these pay settlements contained an element of local flexibility.

  Hospital Beds (Somerset)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds were in use by the(a) East Somerset NHS Trust and (b) Taunton NHS Trust for each year since 1985–86. [144598]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table. It shows the average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight for East Somerset National Health Service Trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust from 1991–92 to 1999–2000.

  Figures from 1985 are not available in the form requested as the two organisations existed as NHS trusts only from 1991–92; therefore it is not possible to provide earlier separate figures.

  Prior to NHS trusts being established, bed numbers were collected by district health authority. To ensure as complete a picture as possible the table also includes figures for Somerset DHA for 1985 to 1992–93. For 1991–92 and 1992–93 the DHA figures are for the mental health and community units which gained trust status in 1993–94 (called Avalon in earlier years, now Somerset Partnership). For comparison the figures for England for the same period are also included.
  513W

  Average daily number of beds in wards open overnight, NHS trusts and units in Somerset Health Authority area and England, 1985 to 1999–2000

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  Somerset Partnership NHS Trust

  Somerset DHA

  Total for Somerset HA area

  England

  1996–97

  405

  909

  431

  —

  1,745

  198,848

  1997–98

  423

  922

  424

  —

  1,769

  193,625

  1998–99

  405

  870

  419

  —

  1,694

  190,006

  1999–2000

  406

  853

  408

  —

  1,668

  186,290

  Source:

  DH form KH03

  Mortuaries
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to NHS trusts about the use of refrigerated vans or lorries to store bodies when hospital mortuaries have insufficient capacity; and on what dates that guidance was issued. [146465]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The joint Health Service/Local Authority Circular "Winter 2000–01: Capacity Planning for Health and Society Care" (HSC 2000/016: LAC 2000/14) issued on 23 May 2000 stated:
  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 or trailers must not be used.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Director of Communications (Eastern Region)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons Nick Court, Director of Communications of the Eastern Region of the Department of Health, failed to respond to requests for a telephone conversation with Andy Lever, Editor of the Thurrock Gazette; and what the date and timing of each request was. [146300]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: I understand that Mr. Court did not fail to respond to Mr. Lever, editor of the Thurrock Gazette. He returned his call on 16 January 2001.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds there were in the(a) Royal Berkshire and (b) Battle hospitals (i) in May 1997, (ii) in May 1998, (iii) in May 1999 and (iv) at the end of December 2000. [146364]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Bed statistics are collected by National Health Service trusts, not individual hospital sites. Figures on the average daily numbers of beds for each NHS trust are published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Waiting Lists (Berkshire)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are waiting to get onto a waiting list in Berkshire. [146363]
  514W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Nursing Vacancies
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nursing vacancies are(a) unfilled and (b) filled by agency and temporary staff in the NHS in England; [146366]

  (2) how many nursing vacancies at the Royal Berkshire Hospital are (a) unfilled and (b) filled by agency and temporary staff. [146365]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answers 22 January 2001]: Information on unfilled vacancies as at 31 March 2000 is shown in the table.

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff three month vacancies1

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals National Health Service Trust2

  80

  England

  9,870

  1 Posts that had been vacant for three months or more. Numbers are whole-time equivalents rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 The Trust covers the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2000

  Information on how many of the national vacancies were filled by agency and temporary staff is not available centrally.

  Information from the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust shows that in December 2000 all qualified nursing vacancies were covered by 99.15 whole-time equivalent agency and casual staff.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average hourly rate of pay is of a junior nurse on the full-time payroll. [146367]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The current hourly rate of pay for a newly qualified D grade nurse working full-time is £7.62 outside London and £9.16 in inner London including London Allowance.

  Keyhole Operations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that the number of keyhole operations is not reduced on financial grounds. [146769]
  515W
  Mr. Denham
  It is for clinician s to make a clinical judgment as to the best course of treatment for a patient, taking into account clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as patient preference. When making this judgment, we would expect clinicians to take full account of any relevant national guidance, such as that issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had(a) keyhole heart operations and (b) other heart operations on the NES in the last five years in England and Wales. [146770]

  Mr. Denham
  Until very recently cardiac procedures were not carried out using minimally invasive therapy (keyhole surgery). Research is currently under way into the use of such therapy for heart operations.

  The number of heart operations carried out in the National Health Service during the last five years rose by 20 per cent. The figures are:

  Number

  1995–96

  153,784

  1996–97

  162,186

  1997–98

  161,508

  1998–99

  177,711

  1999–2000

  184,671

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Hereditments
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his latest estimate is of the total value of the derating of agricultural hereditments calculated on the basis used in the oral answer given to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on 4 December 1980,Official Report, column 409. [145346]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Agricultural premises have been exempt from rates since 1929 and are not valued for rating purposes. There is therefore no reliable basis on which to make an estimate because a number of factors come into play but, very approximately, it is likely that rates would yield less than £140 million for England.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has made to Her Majesty's Treasury to ensure that agrimonetary compensation is paid automatically each year. [145091]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: No such representations have been made since the Council regulation providing for agrimonetary compensation expires at the end of this year.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels were registered on 1 January in each of the last five years. [146270]
  516W
  Mr. Morley
  The information is in the table.

  UK fishing fleet1

  Number of UK registered fishing vessels at 1 January

  Total

  1996

  9,720

  1997

  8,667

  1998

  8,458

  1999

  8,271

  2000

  8,040

  1 Including Channel Islands and Isle of Man

  Source:

  UK Sea Fisheries Statistics

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with sea fishing industry representatives with regard to stock recovery programmes in waters fished by UK registered boats. [146271]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Fisheries Conservation Group discussed the west of Scotland and North sea cod and the Northern hake recovery plans on 10 January. I was present for part of the meeting and heard the industry's concerns first hand. The industry were present in Brussels during last week's discussions of the cod recovery plan and were kept fully informed and consulted as the negotiations proceeded. They will also be similarly involved in the continuing discussions on the cod recovery plan this week as well as on the hake plan.

  Mobile Homes (Flood Protection)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce flood protection grants to mobile home owners towards the cost of raising the height of their homes above ground; and if he will make a statement. [146643]

  Mr. Morley
  I am replying as this Department is responsible for policy on flood and coastal defence. I have no plans to introduce such grants. Grant is available to operating authorities for capital defence schemes that meet specified criteria, and such schemes may provide flood alleviation for mobile home owners where it is sustainable to do so.

  Flood Defences (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 60W, what plans he is making to improve flood defences in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [146608]

  Mr. Morley
  The responsibility for deciding which flood defence projects to promote and their timing rests with local operating authorities (the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards). The operating authorities have submitted bids for funds to accelerate river flood defences over the next three years, as part of the package of an additional £51 million announced following the recent flooding. The bids are being considered and decisions on allocations will be announced shortly.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels were registered in the UK in(a) 1971 and (b) 2000. [146640]

  Mr. Morley
  At 31 December 2000 there were 7,243 registered fishing vessels in the UK fleet (excluding Channel Islands and Isle of Man).

  The available figures for the end of 1971 show there were 6,071 fishing vessels in the UK fleet.

  These figures are not directly comparable because the 1971 data covered only UK vessels known to be fishing commercially. Also the coverage of the inshore fleet was likely to have been incomplete.

  Source:

  UK Sea Fisheries Statistics.

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce an early retirement scheme for tenant farmers after 55 years of age; and if he will make a statement. [146149]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: After wide consultation we decided that the limited funds available for implementing the EU Rural Development Regulation would be better directed towards other measures to assist the industry, because the type of early retirement scheme available under the Regulation could not be targeted effectively towards those who should benefit.

  Smallholdings
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings were registered as at 1 January; and of that number how many were classified as smallholdings. [146641]

  Ms Quin
  The number of agricultural holdings in England registered at 1 January 2001 is:Main holdings: 123,911
  Minor holdings: 31,012

  Notes:
  A holding is classified as minor if all the following criteria are true:

  a. the total area is less than 6 hectares

  b. there is no regular whole-time farmer or worker

  c. the estimated annual labour requirement is less than 100 days (of eight hours productive work by an adult worker under average conditions)

  d. the glasshouse area is less than 100 square metres

  e. the occupier does not farm another building.

  If any of these conditions is not satisfied, the holding is categorised as "main".

  Land (Productive Use)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres were in productive use in(a) 1971 and (b) 2000. [146637]
  518W
  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Total area on agricultural holdings in England (including common rough grazing

  Year

  Hectares

  Acres

  1971

  9,985,399

  24,673,921

  2000

  9,496,827

  23,466,660

  Source:

  June agricultural and horticultural census.

  Depleted Uranium (Irish Sea)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring his Department undertakes of the levels of depleted uranium in fish and shellfish caught in the Irish Sea. [144984]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  Monitoring the radioactive contamination of fish and shellfish caught in the Irish Sea is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. It does not undertake monitoring for depleted uranium contamination specifically but does monitor levels of total uranium contamination arising from discharges from Sellafield and other sources. This monitoring indicates that levels of uranium in fish and shellfish are only slightly enhanced above that expected from natural background. Detailed results of such monitoring are given in the annual Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report published jointly by the Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Bug
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the(a) cost to Her Majesty's Government and (b) impact on the UK of the millennium bug. [146698]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the oral statement on the millennium bug, which I made on 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 975–83, and the update, which I provided on 28 February 2000, Official Report, columns 135–36W, and 20 April 2000, Official Report, column 596W. No significant problems have been reported since then.

  The estimated cost of the millennium bug to central Government was £380 million. The Government's preparations were an outstanding success, with the UK almost untouched by the bug. However, things did not go right by accident. The bug was shown to have the capacity to wreak havoc among essential services. The Government's objective was to ensure that the bug did not cause material disruption to these services. That objective was achieved.

  The work has wide-reaching benefits which were drawn out in a command paper, "Modernising Government in Action: Realising the benefits of Y2K", which I placed in the Libraries of the House on 18 April 2000, as stated on 18 April 2000, Official Report, column 425W.

  Liaison Committee
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council when the Government will implement proposals set out in the First report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 300; and if she will make a statement. [145535]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have nothing to add to the Government response to the Liaison Committee Report, which was set out in Cm 4737.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Flood Damage (Roads)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to ensure cooperation between the public and private sectors in reacting to flood damage to major roads; [144842]

  (2) what his powers are in relation to the combating of prolonged flooding of major roads; [144841]

  (3) what role has been played by the Environment Agency in connection with the recent flooding of the A22 in Whyteleafe; [144843]

  (4) what action he has taken over the recent flooding of the A22 at Whyteleafe; and if he will make a statement. [144844]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: The A22 at Whyteleafe is a local road for which Surrey county council is the highway authority. As the highway authority, the county council are responsible for the maintenance of the road, including dealing with any flooding problem. The Secretary of State does not have powers under the Highways Act 1980 to direct a local highway authority in the discharge of its maintenance duties under the Act.

  The flooding of the A22 at Whyteleafe was caused by a periodic flow of the Bourne due to the rising groundwater levels in the chalk aquifer as a result of the heavy autumn rainfall. The Bourne is normally a dry watercourse and records show it has flowed on only three occasions in the past 20 years. On this occasion the water was prevented from draining away as a result of blockages downstream of the A22. The water backed up to form a lake that covered the road which was closed for safety reasons on police advice. Alternative diversion routes were set up by Surrey county council and the London borough of Croydon.

  To deal with the A22 flooding the Surrey county council and Tandridge district council set up a pumping arrangement to bypass the blockages and take away the excess Bourne water. This was not a straightforward operation and factors such as the need to protect the Kenley water works had to be considered. The pumping operation was successful and the road re-opened to traffic on 8 January.

  A hydrogeologist from the Environment Agency visited the site of the flooding on 20 December and has liaised with officials of Tandridge district council. The Bourne watercourse is not a "Main River" and is therefore the
  520W
  responsibility of the riparian landowners. Tandridge district council and Surrey county council staff have been working to remove the blockages from the course of the Bourne and Tandridge district council have taken the lead in bringing together key organisations to minimise the risk of a repetition of the local flooding. The Environment Agency have provided advice to some individuals who contacted them about the flooding of their properties.

  In response to the countrywide flooding problems experienced as a result of the heavy autumn rainfall the Government have established a Hoods Task Force, chaired by the MAFF Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside, which draws together all relevant departments and aims to ensure effective co-ordination of central Government's support for communities recovering from the effects of flooding. The Task Force will share examples of good practice.

  Trains (Disabled Access)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to help ensure that trains are designed to provide better access for people with disabilities, with particular reference to wheelchair and power scooter users. [145394]

  Mr. Hill
  We are fully committed to providing a public transport system which is accessible to disabled people, providing them the same opportunities to travel as other members of society. We are introducing technical regulations under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), to require new trains, as well as buses and coaches and taxis, to be accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users.

  The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations have applied to all new rail vehicles entering service since 1 January 1999. These Regulations considerably improve access for disabled passengers to new rail vehicles and include, among other features, a requirement for a boarding aid, either a ramp or lift (where the gap exceeds prescribed dimensions), dedicated wheelchair spaces and on-board accessible toilets for those trains in which toilet facilities are provided.

  The Regulations specify the maximum wheelchair dimensions that can be accommodated in regulated vehicles. The dimensions of the occupied "reference" wheelchair are set at an overall width of 700 mm, length of 1,200 mm and height of 1,350 mm. These dimensions are based on the international wheelchair standard. This is bigger than the majority of wheelchairs in this country and is able to meet the needs of almost all wheelchair users. There may be some scooters which exceed these dimensions, or in addition, there may be operational reasons why some scooters cannot safely be carried on trains. These dimensions were set after extensive consultation and with the agreement of our statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The dimensions also have to be technically achievable within the constraints of vehicle design and operation.

  The DDA does not allow for an "end" date to be set by which all rail vehicles must comply with the Regulations. However, the Disability Rights Task Force, in their report to the Government, have recommended that this point

  521W
  should be addressed in any future disability legislation. We are now in discussion with the industry about how that recommendation can be taken forward.

  For existing trains, the Rail Regulator is currently revising his Code of Practice, "Meeting the needs of Disabled Passengers", which I understand will deal with refurbishment of existing vehicles.

  Clearly, disabled people need to have reliable information about whether their mobility equipment can be accommodated. My Department is therefore working with the wheelchair manufacturing industry to ensure that disabled people are able to make their choice of a scooter or wheelchair based on their particular life style, including their transport needs.

  Housing (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the annual capital spending on housing by Leeds city council for each of the last 20 years. [146000]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information on housing capital expenditure, reported by Leeds city council to the Department as part of their annual Housing Investment Programme submissions, is set out in the table.

  Housing capital expenditure by Leeds city council 1980–81 to 1999–2000

  £000

  1980–81

  29,202

  1981–82

  24,212

  1982–83

  41,337

  1983–84

  37,023

  1984–85

  29,903

  1985–86

  26,631

  1986–87

  33,465

  1987–88

  36,933

  1988–89

  39,708

  1989–90

  41,469

  1990–91

  32,419

  1991–92

  34,174

  1992–93

  37,894

  1993–94

  34,713

  1994–95

  41,136

  1995–96

  44,212

  1996–97

  43,736

  1997–98

  26,861

  1998–99

  30,852

  1999–2000

  35,068

  Notes:

  1. All figures are in cash prices

  2. Figures since 1994–95 are on an accruals basis

  Source:

  DETR Housing Investment Programme returns

  Road Schemes
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road schemes were(a) accepted, (b) provisionally accepted and (c) rejected in the Local Transport Settlement 2000. [146038]

  Mr. Hill
  Three road schemes were accepted, 36 provisionally accepted and one rejected. In addition, we were unable to take decisions on 34 schemes bid for by authorities because they had provided insufficient information about them. These schemes have been treated 522W
  as work in progress and there will be an opportunity for authorities to resubmit them with their first-year progress reports on their local transport plans this July.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those major road schemes(a) accepted and (b) provisionally accepted in the Local Transport Financial Settlement 2000 which may affect a nationally designated site of environmental importance, indicating the designation in each case. [146037]

  Mr. Hill
  (a) None.

  (b) The following schemes will have a direct or indirect affect on designated sites. All the schemes which authorities bid for were assessed using the New Approach to Appraisal and in deciding to accept these particular schemes for funding it was judged that the benefits they would confer outweighed the impacts on the designated sites.

  Scheme

  Site directly or indirectly affected

  Barnstaple Western Bypass

  River Taw Estuary SSSI

  Camelford Bypass

  River Camel SSSI

  Carlisle Northern Development Route

  River Eden Coastal Plain Zone

  East Kent Access Phase 1

  Pegwell Bay SSSI

  Nar Ouse Regeneration Route

  River Nar SSSI

  Salisbury Transport Package:

  Brunel Link

  River Nadder SAC

  Haraham Relief Road

  West Harnham Chalk Pit SSSI

  Sunderland Southern Radial Route

  Durham Coast SSSI

  Weymouth Relief Road

  Lorton and Lodmoor SSSIs and AONB

  Railtrack
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions (1) on how many occasions the Government have traded shares in Railtrack; [146003]

  (2) what plans he has to dispose of the Government's equity stake in Railtrack; [146002]

  (3) when Her Majesty's Government took a 0.2 per cent. equity stake in Railtrack. [146004]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's holding of Railtrack shares originates from the time of the Railtrack flotation in 1996 when some 4 million shares were held back in order to meet a contractual obligation to distribute bonus shares to shareholders who held their shares for three years. Some 3 million were distributed as bonus shares on 31 May 1999. The residual shareholding represents 0.2 per cent. of Railtrack's share capital of 500 million shares.

  Apart from the specific arrangements for the flotation of Railtrack, including the issue of bonus shares, the Government have not traded in Railtrack shares. The Government have no current plans for disposing of their residual shareholding.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what quality control checks are in place to ensure that the re-railing of track meets the industry's standards; and if he will make a statement. [146005]
  523W
  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack has prime responsibility for the safety and security of the railway it controls and for the health and safety of those who are affected by its activities.

  Railtrack's contracts for infrastructure maintenance and track renewal require contractors to be compliant with specified standards designed to ensure safe and secure operation. The contractors are required to inform Railtrack of any deficiencies found and of any remedial work they consider necessary.

  In order to continue to discharge its statutory safety obligations under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, Railtrack must accept responsibility for all decisions that relate to infrastructure maintenance, repair and track renewal works.

  Transport Accidents
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) road and (b) rail accident fatalities there have been in the United Kingdom since 1971; and if he will make a statement. [144607]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: Figures for fatalities in rail and road accidents are published by the Department in the annual publication "Transport Statistics Great Britain". The latest figures for Great Britain are set out as follows:

  Rail accident fatalites

  Road accident fatalities

  Number

  Of which: died on trains

  Number

  1971

  112

  13

  7,699

  1972

  83

  20

  7,763

  1973

  82

  18

  7,406

  1974

  72

  6

  6,883

  1975

  115

  57

  6,366

  1976

  79

  18

  6,570

  1977

  73

  12

  6,614

  1978

  98

  22

  6,831

  1979

  94

  20

  6,352

  1980

  59

  7

  6,010

  1981

  65

  7

  5,846

  1982

  51

  11

  5,934

  1983

  63

  10

  5,445

  1984

  71

  30

  5,599

  1985

  61

  6

  5,165

  1986

  68

  27

  5,382

  1987

  67

  10

  5,125

  1988

  93

  40

  5,052

  1989

  59

  18

  5,373

  1990

  73

  4

  5,217

  19911

  60

  11

  4,568

  19921

  32

  5

  4,229

  19931

  33

  6

  3,814

  19941

  39

  12

  3,650

  19951

  24

  7

  3,621

  19961

  21

  1

  3,598

  19971

  42

  10

  3,599

  19981

  32

  3

  3,421

  19991

  60

  33

  3,423

  1 Since April 1991 rail fatality statistics have been collected by financial year, for example the rail death figures shown for 1991 were for the financial year 1991–92.

  524W
  The rail fatality figures include passenger and staff fatalities and the total includes those killed in incidents involving the movements of trains (although excluding trespassers and suicides) as well as those travelling on trains.

  The road fatality figures include pedestrians killed as well as vehicle occupants.

  Oil Pollution
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider recommendations for oil pollution to be subject to MARPOL standards and legislation. [146158]

  Mr. Hill
  The relevant provisions of the MARPOL Convention and its Annexes, notably "Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil", have been incorporated in UK law through regulations under Merchant Shipping legislation and are in force.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision his Department makes available to meet the costs of oil pollution in ports. [146159]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department does not make provision to meet the costs of oil pollution in ports. Compensation for oil pollution damage resulting from spills of persistent oil carried in bulk as cargo by tankers is available from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, under the framework of the 1992 Protocols to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 and the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971, UK legislation applies strict liability for all oil pollution from shipping, and this therefore obliges non-tanker owners to meet the costs up to the limits according to the ships' tonnage under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976.

  London Underground
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates on which parts of the(a) Bakerloo, (b) Central, (c) Circle, (d) District, (e) East London, (f) Hammersmith and City, (g) Jubilee, (h) Metropolitan, (i) Northern, (j) Piccadilly and (k) Victoria London Underground lines were closed to passengers during 2000; and if he will set out in relation to each closure the stretch of line closed and the purpose of the closure. [145703]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LUL) but they have provided the information in the table.

  LUL keep a variety of records of incidents on the London Underground system. For the purpose of answering this question, LUL have taken
  line closure to passengers during 2000
  to mean formal closures of lines or sections of lines for planned works.
  525W

  Line/Purpose of closure

  Location

  Dates during 2000

  Bakerloo

  Railtrack Works

  Queens Park to Harrow and Wealdstone

  8–10 January, 15–17 January, 22–24 January, 29–31 January

  Railtrack Works

  Queens Park to Willesden Junction

  5–7 February, 12–14 February, 19–21 February, 26–27 February, 4–6 March, 11–13 March, 18–20 March, 1–2 April

  Railtrack Works

  Queens Park to Stonebridge

  27–28 March, 3–4 June, 10–11 June

  Railtrack Works

  Queens Park to Wembley Central

  16–19 June, 23–26 June 30 June-3 July, 7–10 July

  Railtrack Works

  Stonebridge Park to Harrow and Wealdstone

  22–23 July, 29–30 July, 5–6 August, 12–13 August, 19–20 August, 26–27 August, 2–3 September, 9–10 September, 16–17 September

  Hungerford Bridge

  Piccadilly Circus to Elephant and Castle

  21–23 October, 4–6 November

  Millennium Project

  17–20 November, 24–27 November

  Track Works

  Paddington to Elephant and Castle

  21–23 October, 4–6 November

  Railtrack Works

  Harrow and Wealdstone to Watford Junction

  8–9 April, 29–30 April, 6–7 May, 20–21 May

  Central

  Track Works

  Epping to Loughton

  14–17 January, 21–24 January, 28–31 January, 25–28 February, 3–6 March, 10–13 March, 17–20 March

  Track Works

  Holborn to Liverpool Street

  4–7 February

  Track Works

  Woodford to Epping

  19–22 May, 26–30 May

  Track Works

  Leytonstone to Hainault

  16–19 June, 23–26 June

  Track Works

  North Acton to Northolt/Ealing

  7–10 July

  Track Works

  Bethnal Green to Leytonstone

  14–17 July, 8–11 September

  Track Works

  Hainault to Woodford

  3–6 November

  District

  Track Works

  Putney Bridge to Wimbledon

  18–21 February, 31 March-3 April, 7–10 April, 5–8 May, 2–5 June

  Track Works

  Turnham Green to Richmond

  26–27 March; 22–25 September

  Track Works

  Parsons Green to Wimbledon

  31 March-3 April, 7–10 April

  Track Works

  Parsons Green to Putney Bridge

  2–5 June

  Track Works

  Plaistow to Whitechapel

  17–20 November

  East London

  No Planned Works

  Hammersmith and City

  No Planned Works

  Jubilee

  No Planned Works

  Metropolitan and City

  Track Works

  Raynors Land to Uxbridge

  4–7 February, 11–14 February, 24–27 March

  Track Works

  Harrow-on-the-Hill to Wembley Park

  18–21 February, 28–31 July

  Track Works

  Harrow-on-the-Hill to Northwood

  5–8 May, 1–4 September

  Track Works

  Rickmansworth to Amersham/Chesham

  8–11 September, 15–18 September, 22–25 September, 29 September-2 October

  Track Works

  Moor Park to Amersham/Chesham

  13–16 October

  Track Works

  Chorleywood to Rickmansworth

  27–30 October, 10–13 November, 24–27 November, 1–4 December

  Northern

  Track Works

  Tooting Broadway to Morden

  9–12 June, 21–24 July

  526W 527W

  Line/Purpose of closure

  Location

  Dates during 2000

  Track Works

  Camden Town

  27 August

  Track Works

  Camden Town to Kennington (via Bank)

  11–17 November, 20–24 November, 27 November-24 December (after 9.45 pm)

  Piccadilly

  Track Works

  Heathrow Terminal 4

  4–6 March

  Track Works

  Acton Town to Alperton

  12–15 May

  Victoria

  Track Works

  Victoria to Brix on

  4–26 August

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact the adoption of the accounting requirements of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 15 had on London Underground Ltd.'s annual accounts for 1999–2000; and what impact they will have on its accounts for 2001–01. [147206]

  Mr. Hill
  The accounts of London Underground Ltd. are prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985, which requires compliance with all accounting standards. Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 15, issued by the Accounting Standards Board, became mandatory for accounting periods ending on or after 23 March 2000 and has consequently been adopted by London Underground in its accounts for the year ended 31 March 2000.

  FRS15 sets out the principles of accounting for tangible fixed assets. As well as imposing stricter rules on the allocation of overheads to capital projects, the standard requires that expenditure previously treated as renewals must now either be charged to cost of operations, or capitalised as an addition to fixed assets.

  The revised accounting policies have reduced London Underground Ltd.'s gross operating margin for 1999–2000 to £153.6 million (from £293.6 million1), and increased its operating loss before grants to £145.2 million (from £101.2 million1). These are, however, purely accounting changes. Neither affects the amount of cash available, or Government grant paid, to London Underground Ltd.

  In 2000–01, the changes in allocation of cost will reduce London Underground Ltd.'s gross operating margin and the value of its investment programme from the budgeted values published in the LT Annual Business Plan to £135.6 million (from £260 million) and £360.6 million (from £400 million) respectively. However, as these are again purely accounting changes, neither the External Finance Limit for the year, nor physical delivery of the investment programme, will be affected.

  The actual figures for 2000–01 will be published in due course.

  1 The amounts reported in the accounts of London Regional Transport, which are prepared in accordance with the London Regional Transport Act 1984, and were published as part of the LT Annual Report 1999–2000, "Improving London's transport", document on 28 June 2000.

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the location of gauge corner cracks of the railhead on the lines 528W
  between London Waterloo and Exeter via Salisbury; what speed restrictions were imposed; and what the age of the track was. [146338]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack. I understand from Railtrack that, since Hatfield, 17 speed restrictions were imposed on the lines between London Waterloo and Exeter. Three of these restrictions remain in place but are expected to be withdrawn by 28 February. Of the 17 restrictions, six were on the slow lines over which trains from Waterloo to Exeter do not normally run. The remaining restrictions are north of Basingstoke. The age of the rail affected varied.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the railway lines between London Waterloo and Exeter were last tested ultrasonically. [146337]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack. I understand from Railtrack that the rails along the route between London Waterloo and Exeter are tested at various frequencies depending on the speed and number of trains. Teams work continuously testing all routes, so the date that the rail was last tested could only be given for a specific location.

  A38
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the outcome of the SWARMMS investigation into a possible bypass for the A38 at Dobwalls. [146624]

  Mr. Hill
  The SWARMMS London to south west and south Wales multi-modal study is due to report around the end of 2001. The consultants have been asked to provide an early report on the Dobwalls bypass and I will ensure there are no unnecessary delays in reaching a decision.

  Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the strategy and aims which will underpin the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 will be published. [146857]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's fuel poverty strategy will be published shortly for consultation. The strategy document will set out the Government's fuel poverty aims and objectives, and the policies to achieve them.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what powers local government pension funds are prevented from offering stakeholder pensions. [146487]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities do not, at present, have the statutory power they would need to offer stakeholder pensions. If proposals for such legislation emerge, they would be considered carefully.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce guidance on extending the seat belt requirement to all school transportation. [146711]

  Mr. Hill
  All coaches and minibuses that carry groups of children on organised trips must have seat belts available. This applies whether or not they are being used for school transport. Guidance on this requirement was issued in 1996, and copies are available from my Department on request as well as being available on the DETR website.

  We will also be requiring seat belts to be provided in all new buses, coaches and minibuses, apart from those specifically designed to carry standing passengers. These regulations will be made shortly, and we intend that they will apply to vehicles first used on or after 1 October 2001. We intend to prepare guidance for businesses on complying with this legislation.

  No other guidance is planned on this subject.

  Farm Plastic Waste
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will introduce a national waste collection scheme for the disposal of waste farm plastics; and if he will make a statement; [146469]

  (2) what action he is taking in respect of the disposal and recycling of waste farm plastics; [146471]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning a mandatory national waste collection scheme governing the disposal of waste farm plastics. [146468]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 23W, to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the life and funding of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. [146597]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have been encouraged by the progress made by the Trust since it was set up in September 1999, and the role it has taken in the regeneration of the coalfield areas. In the light of this progress, we are currently discussing options with the Trust for its longer-term funding and hope to make an announcement shortly.
  530W
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much in(a) cash and (b) percentage terms of the money so far allocated by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust has been given to projects in the Cannock Chase area. [146598]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has made awards of £36,804,666, of which the Cannock Chase area has been allocated £646,283 (1.76 per cent.). To date a total of £9,418,877 has been paid out, with Cannock receiving £80,855 (0.86 per cent.).

  GM Seeds
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what and how many official spot checks were carried out on imported seed supplies with the purpose of detecting the adventitious presence of GM varieties in 2000.[146408]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) has delegated functions under part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to carry out inspection and enforcement with respect to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. The GM inspectorate at CSL carried out audits of 14 seed importing companies during 2000. The inspectors concentrated on auditing companies importing oilseed rape seeds for sowing in autumn 2000. All of the main rape seed importers (13 companies) were inspected. The inspectors have now turned their attention to the importers of beet seeds and spring sown oilseed rape. One beet seed importer had been audited before 31 December 2000. The inspections are continuing.

  In all cases the GM inspectors checked the companies' records to confirm whether they were operating proper checks and procedures to ensure that no unauthorised GM material was being imported. No problems were identified.

  Marine Conservation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recommendations the working party evaluating the successes of previous marine nature conservation measures have made; and if their report will be published. [146926]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Review of Marine Nature Conservation Working Group has not made any recommendations yet. I hope that a report of the Group's deliberations to date will be submitted to Ministers shortly. Once Ministers have seen the report, a decision will be made on how to make it publicly available.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change planning law, with particular reference to the rights of objectors. [146991]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no immediate plans to introduce planning legislation which would affect the rights of objectors.

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  531W
  administrative arrangements he plans to put in place to resolve potential overlapping responsibilities between the proposed New Forest park authority and the Lymington harbour commissioners regarding the management scheme for salt marsh and mud flats designated as a special area of conservation. [145150]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under Regulation 34 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994, a single Management Scheme has to be prepared for each European Marine Site. That for the Solent is in the early stages of preparation and is currently planned to be published in November 2003. The Management Scheme, which will be drawn up as a partnership exercise by all the relevant authorities involved, should provide an agreed protocol on which authority should take the lead where responsibilities would otherwise overlap.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the proposed New Forest national park authority will be a relevant authority for the purposes of the habitat regulations in respect of the salt marsh and mud flats special area of conservation which is the responsibility of the Lymington harbour commissioners. [145151]

  Mr. Mullin
  If a New Forest National park authority is the local planning authority in relation to land or waters within or adjacent to a european marine site, it will be a relevant authority for the purposes of the habitats regulations. Neither the boundary of a possible New Forest national park nor the precise administrative arrangements for a New Forest national park authority have yet been set.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he proposes to put in place to administer the structure of coastal management in the Solent between the European maritime site and the proposed New Forest national park. [145152]

  Mr. Mullin
  The arrangements for coastal management will depend on the boundary of a New Forest national park, currently being considered as part of the designation process, and the precise administrative arrangements adopted for a New Forest national park authority.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the, Regions what effect his proposals for a New Forest national park will have upon the jurisdiction and responsibilities discharged by the Lymington harbour commissioners. [145153]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Lymington harbour commissioners constitute an independent statutory body under their own Act of Parliament, the Pier and Harbour Order (Lymington) Confirmation Act 1951. It is not expected that the creation of a national park would amend the provisions of that Act.

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received advice from the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority on the economic regulatory regime for the public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.[147157]
  532W
  Mr. Mullin
  The monopoly services provided by the National Air Traffic Services Ltd. public/private partnership will be subject to price regulation by the RPI-X method, which is the standard model for monopoly regulation in the United Kingdom. The charge cap, or "X" factor, will be set for a period of five years and will, for the first five year period only, be set by the Government.

  We received advice from the CAA in August which set out how they proposed to approach the economic regulation of NATS and recommended that the "X" factor for NATS' UK monopoly services be set at 5 per cent. per year for each of the first five years. We have considered this advice carefully, alongside representations from NATS and the projections of bidders as the sale process developed, and have decided to set charge capping at 2.2 per cent. for 2001, 3.0 per cent. for 2002, 4.0 per cent. for 2003, and 5.0 per cent. for each of 2004 and 2005. There will thus be a progressive tightening across the initial years following the introduction of the PPP.

  Furthermore, since delays are a major concern to airlines, we have decided that the charge cap should include a delay term, so that the "X" factor will automatically tighten, thereby reducing NATS' revenues, if delays increase beyond their present level. We are setting the maximum delay term at £2 million per year for 2001–02, and £5.7 million per year for 2003–05.

  The CAA's advice on the charge cap was based on a well-considered and comprehensive analysis of NATS' operational and investment plans and the potential for efficiency savings. And we are satisfied that the advice fully reflected the Government's, and the CAA's, commitment to giving the highest priority to safety.

  In reaching our decision, we have been concerned to achieve a smooth transition to the PPP, which we believe will be encouraged by such price control in its first few years. This will better enable NATS' management to focus on getting the change and investment programmes right during the early years of the PPP, including the commissioning of the Swanwick Centre, the development of the New Scottish Centre, and further investment in the capacity wanted by airlines.

  NATS' management accept that efficiency gains of the level required to meet the charge cap we are setting, while challenging, are achievable without detriment to NATS operations.

  Policy Action Teams
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make available an audit of how the recommendations made by the 18 policy action teams have been implemented. [147158]

  Ms Armstrong
  A report by the Social Exclusion Unit, "The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team Audit" will be published tomorrow and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Eighteen Policy Action Teams (PATs) were set up in 1998 to fast track policy development on some of the most intractable problems facing deprived neighbourhoods and had all reported by April 2000.
  533W
  It is a companion document to "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal: the National Strategy Action Plan" that was published on 15 January. The work and recommendations of the Policy Action Teams formed the foundation on which the National Strategy Action Plan is built.

  Collectively, the PATs made almost six hundred recommendations, the majority of which are now part of Government policy. The document that will be published tomorrow reports on progress in implementing these recommendations and gives details about which Departments are responsible for ensuring their continued implementation.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many listed buildings are used primarily as places of worship, broken down by religious affiliation. [146323]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are 14,802 listed buildings in England that are currently being used, or have previously been used, as places of worship. Our records do not provide a comprehensive breakdown of this figure by religious affiliation.

WALES

  MS
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about funding for disease modifying therapies for relapsing/remitting MS. [145078]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the Health Service in Wales.

  I understand that decisions about the funding of particular forms of treatment are matters for individual Health Authorities and NHS Trusts within the broad framework of their Long Term Agreements.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the current value is of the block grant under the Barnett Formula to central Government funding for Wales; what it was in 1997–98; and what the forecast is for 2003–04. [145198]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The current value of the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for the National Assembly for Wales is £7.7 billion. In 1997–98 it was £6.5 billion and in 2003–04 it is forecast to be £9.8 billion.

DEFENCE

  Contracting Arrangements (Scotland)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to advertise the proposed prime contracting arrangements for Scotland. [147205]
  534W
  Dr. Moonie
  Firms are to be given an opportunity to express an interest in the Prime Contract for property management and capital works programmes associated with the Defence estate in Scotland (sometimes called the One Stop Shop, Scotland). The advert will appear in the Defence Estates Works Services Opportunities Bulletin on 24 January.

  The Regional Prime Contract Scotland represents a new and innovative way of doing business for Government and the Ministry of Defence. It will involve a single arrangement between the MOD and a contractor and is based around collaborative working. The MOD is in the vanguard of wider Government initiatives aimed to change the construction industry, and provide better quality of service and greater value for money.

  Iraq (No-fly Zone)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's estimate is of the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of coalition aircraft responding 10 threats in(a) the northern and (b) the southern no-fly zone in Iraq between (i) 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998 and (ii) since 20 December 1998 through (A) collateral damage, (B) attack on an unintended target and (C) malfunction of ordnance; what percentage of attacks in the no-fly zones resulted in civilian casualties over each of these periods, and if he will make a statement. [145423]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave on 6 June 2000,Official Report, columns 168–69W.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions coalition aircraft patrolling the(a) northern and (b) southern no-fly zone in Iraq have hit targets different from the intended target since 20 December 1998; on what dates each attack took place; what percentage these represented of overall attacks during this period; and if he will make a statement.[145425]

  Mr. Hoon
  The coalition goes to exceptional lengths to avoid hitting anything other than the intended target, including through the use of very strict target clearance procedures and precision guided munitions. We also routinely conduct painstaking battle damage assessment after every bomb is dropped. For these reasons we are confident that, in the vast majority of cases, ordnance released by coalition aircraft lands on or very close to its intended target.

  I am withholding detailed information on the activity undertaken by coalition aircraft in accordance with Part II of Section 1c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  For the period 20 December 1998 to 12 May 2000, I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my answer to his question on 6 June 2000, Official Report, columns 168–69W. There have been no further occasions of ordnance from UK aircraft appearing to hit unintended targets. The weapons released on these two previous occasions still represents some 1 per cent. of ordnance released by UK over this period.
  535W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions(a) coalition and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have released ordnance in response to violations since 1 November 2000 indicating in percentage terms for this period the (i) nature of the threat (ii) category of the target attacked and (iii) tonnage of ordnance released on each category of target (A) in total and (B) as proportion of the overall tonnage released in this period; and if he will make a statement. [145461]

  Mr. Hoon
  Between 1 November 2000 and 12 January 2001 coalition aircrew conducting legitimate humanitarian patrols in the southern no-fly zone were directly threatened by the Iraqi air defence forces on 24 occasions and responded in self-defence on nine occasions against Iraqi military facilities posing a direct threat to coalition forces. UK aircraft released ordnance on four occasions. Details of the threats to coalition aircraft, broken down by percentage, are:

  (i) Nature of threat by percentage
  Aircraft Violations of Southern no-fly zone: 3 per cent.
  Anti-Aircraft Artillery/Surface to Air Missile Firings: 97 per cent.
  (ii) Category of Target Attacked by percentage
  Integrated Air Defence System: 100 per cent.
  (iii) UK Weapons Released against Integrated Ground Based Air Defence System

  (a) By tonnage: 4 tonnes

  (b) By percentage: 100 per cent.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 20 December 1998 his Department has been able to verify the claims of civilian casualties due to coalition aircraft activity over the no-fly zones made by the Government of Iraq; what percentage of Iraqi claims of civilian dead his Department considers to be accurate in relation to(a) number of dead and (b) occasions when coalition activity has resulted in casualties; and if he will make a statement. [145468]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has no objective means of verifying Iraqi claims of civilian casualties. I am not therefore in a position to provide the precise information requested by the right hon. and learned Member.

  Coalition aircraft conducting legitimate, entirely humanitarian patrols of the Iraqi no-fly zones are being repeatedly attacked by Iraqi forces. Faced with these acts of aggression coalition aircraft, acting entirely in self-defence, only ever target Iraqi military facilities that pose an immediate and serious threat to their safety. It is deeply regrettable that they are forced to take this action, but they are only acting in self-defence. The risk of civilian casualties is always a major consideration during the very careful target selection process and only precision-guided weapons are used where there is any risk of civilian casualties.

  As the right hon. and learned Member implies, Saddam Hussein routinely claims that civilian casualties have been caused as a result of coalition activity over the no-fly zones. It is in his interests to do so. We learnt long ago not to give too much credence to these allegations. We conduct careful battle damage assessment (BDA) after every incident; this analysis demonstrates in the majority of cases that the coalition weapons have, acting in self-defence, in fact hit their intended military target. The
  536W
  Iraqis regularly claim that there have been civilian casualties on days when the coalition has not even patrolled, let alone dropped any ordnance, and we know that they routinely claim that civilians have been killed when the casualties were actually military personnel. We know also that Saddam has claimed the coalition was responsible for casualties that were in fact caused by Iraqi air defence weapons.

  Gulf Operations
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much additional expenditure has been incurred by his Department as a direct result of operations in the Gulf(a) between 1 August 1992 and 15 December 1998 and (b) since 16 December 1998, indicating in each time period the percentage of that expenditure relating to (i) personnel, (ii) base expenses, (iii) munitions, (iv) aircraft and fuel, (v) intelligence and (vi) other; and if he will make a statement. [145424]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out the total additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992–93 onwards.

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  551

  1993–94

  179

  1994–95

  58

  1995–96

  14

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–011

  24

  1 Estimate

  This expenditure relates to residual costs incurred during the Gulf War, the enforcement of the no-fly zone since 1991 and the associated deployments of naval, air and ground forces in support of our policy of containing Iraq. These figures do not include routine naval deployments to the Gulf.

  War Graves at Sea
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) war ships and (b) merchant marine ships sunk as a result of hostilities in the 20th Century, which are also war graves, are situated within (i) the United Kingdom's territorial waters and (ii) the waters of UK overseas territories; and if a list of such vessels is published; [146060]

  (2) how many British (a) warships and (b) merchant marine ships sunk as a result of hostilities in the 20th Century, which are war graves, are situated within the territorial waters of the Irish Republic; and if a list of such vessels is published. [146059]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no centrally held list of British wrecked military vessels that lie in UK territorial waters, international waters or the territorial waters of other countries.
  537W
  There is no single source of reference which identifies all vessels lost in the service of the Admiralty or on Government Service since 1914. The returns to Parliament, following the end of both World Wars, Navy losses and Merchant Shipping losses, list some 12,000 vessels. No distinction is made between those vessels in Government Service or Mercantile vessels. Only one list identifies vessels where lives were lost. These records have not been updated in the intervening years.

  The UK Hydrographic Office has records of those vessels located in the vicinity of the Irish Republic during surveys between 1840 to 1935. Records of subsequent sinking are obtained from Irish maritime sources. This list is not published but is available, at a charge, from the Hydrographic Office at Taunton, Somerset.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other foreign Ministers about the plundering of ocean war graves; and if he will make a statement. [145041]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 159W.

  Discussions continue with other like-minded Governments in the lead up to the next meeting of interested parties to the UNESCO Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in March/April 2001.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to agree and enforce an international convention to prevent the looting and trespassing by divers of sunken war ships and merchant vessels which are war graves; and if he will make a statement. [146062]

  Dr. Moonie
  My officials continue to negotiate through UNESCO for the inclusion of warships and, in particular military maritime graves in the Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what artefacts and structural parts have been removed from the sunken HMS Prince of Wales; who authorised their removal; and if he will make a statement. [146061]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are unsubstantiated reports that items have been removed from the wreck site of HMS Prince of Wales. Our High Commissions in Singapore and Malaysia have investigated these reports, but they remain unsubstantiated. Assistance in monitoring activities on the wreck has been sought form the Singapore and Malaysian authorities.

  My Department has not authorised the removal of any item from this wreck.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to obtain bilateral agreement with(a) the USA, (b) Commonwealth countries, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) the former belligerent countries of the First and Second World Wars to prevent divers looting and trespassing on sunken war ships and merchant ships which are war graves, and situated within United Kingdom territorial waters. [146053]
  538W
  Dr. Moonie
  My Department continues to talk with many other countries in several different forums in order to take forward the protection of sunken military vessels. The issue of protection of military remains is presently under review and a consultation process is taking place. The consultation document will be issued to other Governments who may have military graves that lie in UK territorial water.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium ammunition has been test fired at(a) the Pendine Land Range and (b) the Castlemartin Range. [146749]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium ammunition has not been test fired at either the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency range, Pendine or the Army's Castlemartin range.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Navy has tungsten-based ammunition for its Phalanx CIWS. [146901]

  Mr. Spellar
  I confirm that the Royal Navy does have tungsten-based ammunition for its Phalanx CIWS. Tungsten-based ammunition was brought into service with the Royal Navy in 1997.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which exercises in each of the past 10 years depleted uranium ammunition has been fired by(a) the Army and (b) the Royal Navy. [146900]

  Mr. Spellar
  No ordnance containing depleted uranium has ever been fired by the Army during exercises.

  Each of the Royal Navy's Type 42 destroyers and Assault Ships are fitted with the Phalanx weapon system and this system is capable of firing both depleted uranium and tungsten ammunition. These vessels are required to conduct Pre-Action Calibration checks, system sensitivity firings and an annual target firing against a towed target. Such firings may on occasion take place during exercises. A detailed interrogation of individual ship logs to determine which firings took place during specific exercises, or which utilised tungsten since its introduction to service, could not be undertaken without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those local authority areas in which depleted uranium-tipped ammunition was(a) tested and (b) used by HM forces; if the local authorities were informed of such testing and firing; what the incidence of leukaemia and other cancer-related illnesses is (i) in those areas and (ii) in similar local authority areas where such firing and testing has not taken place; and if he will make a statement. [146427]

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

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what depleted uranium weapons manufactured in the United Kingdom have been tested at sites abroad; and when and where the tests were. [145284]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 120mm anti-armour rounds Challenger Armament 1 (CHARM 1) for Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank and Challenger Armament 3 (CHARM 3)
  539W
  for Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank are the only operational ammunition natures of UK manufacture using depleted Uranium (DU) that have been fired abroad.

  The following non-operational firings have taken place outside the United Kingdom:

  Ammunition

  Location

  Date

  CHARM 1

  Saudi Arabia

  Early 19911

  CHARM 3

  France

  July 19902

  CHARM 3

  United States of America

  September 19902

  CHARM 3

  United States of America

  October 20003

  1 Operation Granby/work up training

  2 Development trial

  3 In-service trial

  A technology Demonstration Programme for an enhanced DU round led to the following testing:
  United States of America—March 1991 (concept trial).
  United States of America—September 1991 (concept trial).

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received concerning a ban on the use of depleted uranium ammunition by the armed forces. [145937]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between Christmas 2000 and 22 January 2001, my Department has received 77 written representations from members of the public expressing concern over depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. Of these, 14 called for a ban on the use of DU.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what dates for the procurement of(a) Brimstone and (b) Maverick guided munitions have been set. [145464]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Brimstone development and production contract was let to GEC-Marconi Rada and Defence Systems (now Alenia Marconi Systems) in November 1996 and the system is due to enter service in October 2002.

  A contract was signed with Raytheon Corporation on 12 September 2000 for an off-the-shelf purchase of Maverick anti-armour missiles as a result of key lessons learned from the Kosovo campaign. Missiles are currently being delivered, and we expect to have these in service by the middle of February, once the necessary ground and aircrew training has been completed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the procurement of(a) Brimstone and (b) Maverick guided munitions will have on the armed services' requirement to employ cluster bombs. [145465]

  Dr. Moonie
  The introduction into service of the Brimstone and Maverick weapon systems will give us an enhanced capability against single targets, particularly those which are heavily armoured. Cluster bombs will retain a utility against a concentration of lighter armoured vehicles and area targets such as surface-to-air missile sites and logistics storage depots. Brimstone, Maverick and cluster bombs are complementary systems and in any future conflict the weapon considered to be most appropriate to the circumstances would be employed.
  540W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for further procurements of cluster bombs, indicating the(a) type, (b) cost and (c) manufacturer involved; [145466]

  (2) how many cluster bombs, and of what tonnage, are held by British armed services; and what is their current value.[145467]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no plans to procure any further cluster bombs.

  Stockholdings of munitions are held at an authorised War Reserve stock figure. Details of the precise numbers of weapons held in stock could provide a potential adversary with information that could undermine our defence capabilities. This information is therefore withheld in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extensive awareness training has been given by British armed services to local populations with regard to cluster bomb deployments; and what has been the cost of these training programmes. [145469]

  Mr. Spellar
  In common with other military and civilian organisations, British Service personnel do not give specific awareness training on cluster munitions. The British Army has given, and continues to give, training to the local populations of Bosnia and Kosovo which deals with the recognition and avoidance of all types of unexploded ordnance. This training is carried out at no charge to the local population.

  DERA
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to publish the legislation for the DERA PPP described in his Department's performance report 1999–2000.[145402]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the announcement I made in the House on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 777–79, about our intention to proceed with the implementation of the Core Competence model for the DERA public-private partnership. Under Core Competence, around three-quarters of the current DERA organisation will be turned into a company, referred to as NewDERA. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within the Ministry of Defence to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector.

  The necessary legislation to amend the existing DERA Trading Fund Order to remove those operations which will form the basis of the new company was laid before Parliament on 17 January 2001. Copies of the draft Defence Science and Technology Laboratory Trading Fund Order 2001 are available from the House of Commons Vote Office.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the vesting date will be for NewDERA plc; who the directors of the company are; and if he will place in the Library the articles of association of the company. [145403]

  Mr. Hoon
  I can advise the hon. Member that, subject to the approval of the amended Trading Fund Order laid before Parliament on 17 January 2001, the vesting day for
  541W
  NewDERA will be 1 July 2001. The chief executive of the new company will be Sir John Chisholm who is the chief executive of the current DERA organisation. In December 2000 it was announced that Sir John Egan will become the chairman of the new company. The other members of the Board will be chosen in due course. A copy of the articles of association will be placed in the House at the point of vesting.

  Crown Censures
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will indicate(a) the circumstances of the death or injury on each occasion a Crown censure has been issued in the last 10 years and (b) the remedial action and compensation awarded in each case. [146462]

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 23 December from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire requesting that he meet a delegation from the Derbyshire Fire Authority. [146096]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 18 January.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he received on the level of Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority awards; and if he will make a statement. [146764]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1999 we mounted a public consultation exercise seeking views on ways in which the tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme might be improved for the benefit of victims of violent crime. Thirty-three respondents made some comment about the level of awards, either generally or in the context of awards for particular offences or injuries. Since the public consultation exercise we have had correspondence from 33 Members of Parliament about levels of awards, mostly related to individual cases.

  We hope to be in a position to announce soon what improvements we shall be inviting the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Executive to make to the scheme in the light of the consultation exercise and subsequent developments.

  Murders (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders were committed in East Sussex(a) in each of the last 25 years and (b) in each month of the last year for which figures are available. [146700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information relates to currently recorded offences of homicide (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in the Sussex police force area. Data from the homicide database are available from 1977.
  542W
  The information from 1977 to 1999 and for financial year 1999–2000 is shown in the table.

  Year

  Currently recorded homicides

  1977

  8

  1978

  16

  1979

  9

  1980

  8

  1981

  12

  1982

  10

  1983

  8

  1984

  16

  1985

  17

  1986

  14

  1987

  10

  1988

  10

  1989

  16

  1990

  16

  1991

  18

  1992

  16

  1993

  10

  1994

  15

  1995

  7

  1996

  16

  1997

  13

  1998

  25

  1999

  15

  1999–2000

  17

  The currently recorded figure includes all homicides because when an offence is recorded by the police, it is not generally known whether an offence of murder, manslaughter or infanticide has been committed.

  The monthly data cover the period April 1999 to March 2000 for the Sussex police force area and are shown in the table.

  Month recorded by the police

  Currently recorded homicides

  April 1999

  1

  May 1999

  0

  June 1999

  0

  July 1999

  2

  August 1999

  3

  September 1999

  3

  October 1999

  0

  November 1999

  1

  December 1999

  3

  January 2000

  0

  February 2000

  2

  March 2000

  2

  Press Officers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press officers there were in his Department in each year since 1992. [146694]

  Mr. Straw
  Detailed staff profiles for the period prior to 1997 are not held centrally and, as I informed the House on 23 March 2000,Official Report, column 677W, the cost of providing this information would be disproportionate as it would require the Home Office pay branch to conduct a detailed search of all staff records for the periods in question. Payroll records would not, in any event, provide accurate press officer staffing levels which throughout the period in question were enhanced by attachments and secondments and would not necessarily have been reflected in payroll information.
  543W
  For numbers of press officers employed at the Home Office since May 1997, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 17 March 2000, Official Report, column 380W, which detailed staff numbers as of 1 January for the years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  For the current number and projected number, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 15 January 2001, Official Report, column 106W.

  Travellers
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice and guidance he has given in the last 12 months to chief constables about the treatment of travellers. [146678]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Last August, the Government announced and published revisions to the Joint Home Office and Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions guidance on managing unauthorised camping. The revised version removed the term "toleration" in relation to the decision as to whether to take action to evict travellers. It also clarified the guidance on eviction, setting out the statutory powers and taking into account court rulings on the use of those powers. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has revised its operational guidelines to reflect these changes.

  Rape
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those persons who have been jailed in the last 10 years, as a result of(a) a conviction for rape and (b) a charge of rape and who were released as a result of withdrawal of the accusation by the alleged victim. [144925]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to answer this question on the basis of routinely collected data. A special data collection exercise would involve disproportionate cost. Police and magistrates court records indicate that in 1999 just over 40 per cent. of those charged or referred to court on a rape charge were held or remanded in custody, although these data are of poor quality. Of those committed to the Crown court, more than half (53 per cent.) were held in custody. Due to the seriousness of the offence, those bailed would invariably be subject to conditions—36 per cent. in recent Home Office research. Home Office research also suggests that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) discontinues very few rape cases after charge on the basis of a withdrawal by the alleged victim. Where victims withdraw, this usually occurs while the case is still under investigation by the police, leading either to the categorisation of the case as a "no crime" or to no further police action.

  No information is available about the number of convicted and jailed rape offenders who are released following a withdrawal by the alleged victim. In such cases, release would usually follow a reference of the case back to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Commission does not maintain statistics on a basis which would enable the question to be answered.
  544W
  The CPS Inspectorate and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary are due to begin a thematic review of the investigation and prosecution of rape cases in April, reporting in September. Among other issues, the review will examine to what extent cases are dropped after charge or overturned following conviction on the basis of withdrawal by the alleged victim.

  We fully recognise the need for the law to be both effective in prosecuting the guilty but also fair to the accused. That is why the review on sex offences we set up was tasked with providing clear and coherent sex offences which will be fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. We published the recommendations to Government of the Review—contained in "Setting The Boundaries"—in July last year. The consultation period closes on 1 March.

  Policing Performance League Table
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response his Department has made to the publication by Channel 4 Television of the policing performance league table; and if he will make a statement. [146994]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No response has been made.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since its establishment; how many cases have been fully dealt with in each year; how many outstanding cases at the end of each year and on the last date for which figures are available there were; and if he will make a statement. [145711]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In its first year of operation (April 1997–March 1998), the Criminal Cases Review Commission received 1,383 applications (including 248 cases referred to the Commission from the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office), decided 311, and had 1,072 outstanding. In its second year of operation (April 1998–March 1999), it received 1,037 applications, completed 492, and had 1,620 outstanding. In its third year of operation (April 1999–March 2000), it received 774 applications, completed 1,010, and had 1,381 outstanding. In the nine-month period April to December 2000, it received 599 cases, completed 744, and had 1,236 outstanding.

  Computer and Mobile Phone Theft
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded crimes involving theft of(a) computers and (b) mobile phones took place in (i) 1979, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2000. [146989]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Harlan UK Ltd.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent investigations he has commissioned into operating conditions at Harlan UK Ltd. and if he will make a statement. [146612]
  545W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 661W and 30 March 2000, Official Report, column 213W. An investigation by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate was commissioned following allegations about Harlan which were made available to the Home Office by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) on 29 June 1999.

  I received the Chief Inspector's report on 17 December after a thorough investigation into a complex series of allegations. Generally, the establishment was found to be well-run and the level of compliance good. One breach of a condition of certification was confirmed—two animal rooms were not identified in the documentation as having been checked as required on two dates during the last two years. The Certificate holder received an admonition, and reassurances from the management about staffing levels were sought and received.

  Copies of the final version of the Home Office instigative report, from which only those sections containing commercially sensitive information and details of individuals and third parties are withheld, were laid in the Library on 20 March 2000.

  Like all licensed establishments, Harlan remains subject to regular scrutiny by the Inspectorate. I am informed that appropriate action has been taken to correct the weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the Chief Inspector's report.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce gun crime; and if he will make a statement. [146615]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The use of firearms in crime in this country is low in relation to overall national crime figures and international standards. Nevertheless; the Government fully understand public concerns about the criminal misuse of guns and are committed to supporting the police and Her Majesty's Customs in their work to combat this problem through a range of measures which include:Proactive intelligence gathering on sources of weapons used in crime through the Forensic Science Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise;
  Targeted policing measures against particular groups of criminals associated with armed violence;
  The establishment of national database of certificate holders and the possibility of recording the registration details of all legally held firearms;
  Local and possibly national amnesties to reduce the number of illegal guns in the 'grey market' which might fall into criminal hands;
  Good security in respect of legally held firearams to prevent them being stolen;
  Wider controls on de-activated weapons to prevent them being restored to working order;
  Stronger intelligence sharing between the enforcement authorities and the reputable gun trade.

  The Government are also supporting international efforts to negotiate a United Nations protocol against the illicit manufacture of and trafficking in firearms.
  546W
  Armed crime cannot be tackled in isolation from other criminal activities, in particular wider violent crime. Our strategy for tackling Violent crime through a wide-ranging action programme was published earlier this month.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of supported asylum seekers in each category of support system in each district in the county of Tyne and Wear, distinguishing between those placed by the National Asylum Support Service partnership and those placed by NASS outside the partnership. [146384]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of December 2000, the number of bedspaces in National Asylum Support Service accommodation in the county of Tyne and Wear allocated to asylum seekers and their dependants was as follows:

  Area

  Allocated bedspaces

  Gateshead

  1440

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  11,120

  North Tyneside

  1200

  South Tyneside

  160

  Sunderland

  1760

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest ten

  Additionally at the end of December there were 201 asylum seekers (including dependants) who were allocated voucher-only support and were located in the north-east region which includes Northumberland, Tyne and Wear, Durham and Cleveland. Information on the number of these who were staying in the county of Tyne and Wear is not available.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers accommodated by the Regional Consortium and the number accommodated by private sector companies is not available. Information on the number of asylum seekers dispersed to the county of Tyne and Wear by local authorities under the voluntary dispersal scheme is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to allow NASS dispersal partnership partners to issue vouchers to asylum seekers directly. [146385]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is not currently National Asylum Support Service (NASS) policy to allow our partners in dispersal areas to issue vouchers directly to NASS-supported asylum seekers. At present, vouchers are issued by NASS and by Post Office Counters Ltd. NASS issues initial emergency vouchers directly to asylum seekers, until arrangements can be made for them to receive regular vouchers via the voucher supplier, Sodexho Pass UK. Post Office Counters Ltd., under contract to Sodexho Pass UK, provides a network of post offices where asylum seekers can collect their regular vouchers.

  In the interest of expanding the voucher distribution network and improving the service to asylum seekers, NASS officials are currently exploring with interested local authorities, including those in Tyne and Wear, the prospect of piloting local authority distribution of regular vouchers. NASS has also been approached by private

  547W
  sector providers wishing to discuss the scope for local distribution of vouchers in emergencies. We will be giving this proposal careful consideration.

  In addition, Glasgow city council is exceptionally issuing Sodexho Pass vouchers to asylum seekers as part of a special exercise instigated by NASS. These vouchers are the property of Glasgow city council. They are being issued to asylum seekers who have yet to be accepted for NASS support as an alternative to the full board arrangements normally provided for asylum seekers in emergency accommodation.

  There are also a number of local authority schemes under the interim arrangements that make use of Sodexho Pass vouchers.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has made available to the National Asylum Support Service to date. [146114]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service became operational on 3 April 2000 as part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office. For its first year of operation, to 31 March 2001, it has been allocated the following moneys: a budget of £20 million for its staffing and related administration costs and £22 million for grants to voluntary organisations working with asylum seekers.

  It also has responsibility for administration of the Asylum Support budget of £664 million. This funds payments to the Department of Social Security and local authorities for the support of asylum seekers (including unaccompanied asylum seeking children) and support provided by the National Asylum Support Service.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of the issuing of asylum vouchers was in the last 12 months. [145426]

  Mrs. Roche
  Vouchers were introduced on 3 April 2000 when the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) became responsible for providing support to destitute asylum seekers.

  The total value of vouchers issued in the first nine months of this financial year (2000–01) was £15.1 million.

  Total staffing and related administrative costs of the National Asylum Support Service for the same period, including the costs of processing application forms, allocating accommodation and administering the voucher scheme was £9.2 million. This includes payments made under the voucher contract. However, vouchers are printed and distributed by third-party providers under contract to the Home Office and the costs of this service are commercially confidential. The figure excludes the face value of the vouchers and the costs of providing accommodation and travel.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the total number of police officers that will have been recruited in England and Wales by the end of the financial year arising from money allocated for police recruitment from the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement. [142599]
  548W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF), 3,000 additional police officers have been allocated to police forces in England and Wales, over and above their existing recruitment plans for 2000–01.

  Returns from forces suggest that 2,750 recruits deemed to be CFF officers will have been recruited by 31 March 2000.

  The number of recruits deemed to be CFF officers is calculated as a proportion of total recruitment. Total recruitment may vary depending on the success of forces in attracting applicants and processing applications. If total recruitment for the year varies from force projections, the number of deemed CFF officers may also change.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the money for tackling crime announced on 27 March 2000 has been spent. [145557]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Of the additional £285 million which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 27 March 2000 for tackling crime and the causes of crime, nearly £243 million was specifically allocated to the Home Office.

  Expenditure as at 31 December against that allocation was just under £51 million.

  Expenditure on many of the projects for which money was allocated was not scheduled to begin until 2001–02.

  Police (Costs)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimates he has made of the national cost to the Police service of(a) pay, (b) pensions, (c) capital financing and (d) national crime fighting agency levies, in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02; [145019]

  (2) what assessment he has made of real terms differences in the costs of (a) pay, (b) pensions, (c) capital financing and (d) national crime fighting agency levies to local police forces between 2000–01 and 2001–02; [145022]

  (3) what estimates he has made of the average cost to local police forces of (a) pay, (b) pensions, (c) capital financing and (d) national crime fighting agency levies in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [145020]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Detailed estimates of police service costs are made annually by individual police authorities and forces. Each makes its own projections to pay and pensions' costs. In formulating projections of the total financial provision the Government are able to support, careful account is taken of advice from the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers of emerging trends. Account is also taken of estimated pay inflation and pension costs.

  Total Standard Spending (TSS) for 2000–01 is £7,354.2 million. The provision TSS for 2001–02 is £7,731.8 million, an increase of 5.1 per cent. in cash terms of 2.6 per cent. in real terms. Allocation between police authorities of TSS is by formula, and is unhypothecated.
  549W
  I make no estimates of an average cost to local police forces of individual parts of the overall settlement.

  The police services received £144.43 million in capital grants and supplementary credit approvals in 2000–01. Provision was made in the Spending Review for a further £13 million in supplementary credit approval in 2001–02, making £157.43 million in total. This is an increase of 9 per cent. in cash or 6.3 per cent. in real terms. In addition to their share of this direct central provision and support, police authorities may incur additional capital expenditure from their own resources.

  Levies for the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service totalled £148.97 million in 2000–01. For 2001–02 they will be £163.54 million. This is an increase of 9.8 per cent. in cash or 7.1 per cent. in real terms.

  Crime Statistics (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reductions have been achieved in each category of crime in Lancaster and Wyre constituency since 1 May 1997. [145615]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The Lancashire constabulary have provided information on the numbers of recorded crimes for this area for the years ending March 1997 and March 2000, which is given in the table. It should be noted that there was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which means that direct comparisons cannot be made between data for before and after this date. Nationally, the change in counting rules impacted most on violence against the person (which, for example, now includes common assault and assault on a constable), fraud and forgery, and drug and other offences, the latter two of which are combined here as "other" offences. The numbers of recorded crimes in these three categories were inflated nationally by the change in counting rules by 118 per cent., 61 per cent. and 215 per cent. respectively. The change in counting rules resulted in an increase in overall recorded crime figures of 14 per cent. for England and Wales as a whole.

  Lancaster and Wyre parliamentary constituency—recorded crime

  Year ending

  March 1997 (Number of offences)

  March 2000 (Number of offences)

  Percentage change

  Violence against the person

  530

  1,321

  149

  Sexual offences

  106

  74

  -30

  Robbery

  84

  112

  33

  Burglary

  3,894

  3,043

  -22

  Theft and handling

  8,199

  6,605

  -19

  Fraud and forgery

  451

  483

  7

  Criminal damage

  1,950

  3.218

  65

  Other offences

  219

  691

  216

  Total

  15,433

  15,547

  1

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the asylum applications awaiting an initial decision have been outstanding for(a) between six months and one year, (b) between one and two years and (c) more than two years. [145434]
  550W
  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the form requested. As at the end of November (the latest date for which figures are available) the number of asylum applications made within the previous six months where a decision has not been made was approximately 25,500. The number of asylum applications made more than six months ago where a decision has not been made is estimated to be 44,400.

  A very small number of cases involving applications made before 1996 continue to be identified although the vast majority have been dealt with. These cases are being decided as a high priority.

  Any further information could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Children's Fund
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the areas that have been selected to participate in the first wave of the Children's Fund. [146858]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am pleased to announce today the 40 areas that have been selected to benefit from the first allocations of the Children's Fund, amounting to £194 million over three years.

  The Children's Fund is an important element of the Government's wider strategy to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. It is run by the interdepartmental Children and Young People's Unit, based in DfEE. £380 million is available over three years to fund services to prevent children and their families suffering the consequences of poverty. It will form part of a range of measures to ensure that vulnerable children get the best start in life, remain on track in their early years, flourish in secondary school and choose to stay on in education and training at 16.

  The 40 areas across England, which have been invited to participate in the first wave of the fund, include those with the highest levels of need and disadvantage among children and young people along with some areas of particular disadvantage associated with rural and coastal areas. By April 2004 all areas across England will have access to the fund.

  The amount of funding each area will be able to apply for will reflect the numbers of children in poverty in each area, but will vary according to the content and quality of the proposals. A typical amount an average area could receive might be between £1.5 to £2 million each year over three years.

  Guidance outlining the first steps necessary to establish a Children's Fund has today been sent to each area invited to participate in the first wave. Each area will develop preventive services for children between 5–13 and their families. By intervening early we can help children before they are caught by the cycle of poverty and disadvantage. The types of services areas will be asked to develop include mentoring support, counselling and advice services, parent education, out of school activities and

  551W
  work with individual children through multidisciplinary teams in schools or health centres. The following areas have been invited to participate:

  Birmingham

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Camden

  Cornwall

  Doncaster

  Gateshead

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Halton

  Haringey

  Hartlepool

  Islington

  Kent

  Kingston upon Hull

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Middlesbrough

  Newham

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Norfolk

  Nottingham

  Oldham

  Portsmouth

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Southwark

  Stockton on Tees

  Sunderland

  Tower Hamlets.

  Where a Children's Fund area is also developing a project under the On Track programme aimed at children at risk of getting involved in crime, it will be incorporated into the Children's Fund. On Track projects which currently fall outside the first wave of Children's Fund areas will continue to receive funding as planned.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have written to the right hon. and hon. Members in whose constituencies these areas fall.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) the projected revenue to higher education institutions from student tuition fees and (b) the notional revenue on the assumption that no fees were rebated on account of low
  552W
  income will be for the next three financial years; and if he will indicate how the difference is scored in the presentation of Government statistics. [145737]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The projected income to higher education institutions in England from tuition fees governed by the student support regulations, the mandatory award regulations and for those post-graduate students funded by the research councils is shown in table 1:

  Table 1

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Public contributions to fees

  498

  493

  500

  Student contributions to fees1

  350

  376

  400

  Total

  848

  869

  900

  1 The student contributions are net of an estimated 5 per cent. cost for collection and any default

  If exemption from fee contributions for those students from low-income families were to be removed then forecast fee income would be as follows:

  Table 2

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Public contributions to fees

  74

  61

  62

  Student contributions to fees1

  753

  786

  815

  Total

  827

  847

  877

  1 The student contributions are net of an estimated 5 per cent. cost for collection and any default

  Note that under such circumstances public contributions would be paid only in relation to students funded under the mandatory award regulations, PGCE students who are exempt from paying contributions towards fees and those students funded by the research councils. The difference in total fee income relates solely to the increased cost of collection and default.

  In relation to the presentation of statistics the public contributions and student contributions to fees are usually shown separately.

  Tax Reform (Students)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues concerning the recent report of the low income tax reform group of the Chartered Institute of Taxation entitled "Students-The Case for Making Life Easier"; and if he will make a statement. [145738]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: We received a copy of the report very recently and will consider the recommendations of concern to DfEE carefully, consulting other Departments as appropriate.

  Numeracy and Literacy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the percentage of adults with the lowest numeracy and literacy skills in each region and nation of the UK. [145863]
  553W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: In 1998 a Basic Skills Agency 'benchmarking' survey provided estimates of literacy and numeracy rates in England by region. This identified three attainment groups, all of

  Percentage

  Literacy

  Approaching level 1 (Minor difficulties)

  Between entry and level 1 (Significant difficulties)

  Below entry (Serious difficulties)

  Total with poor skills

  East of England

  14.7

  4.0

  3.6

  22.2

  East Midlands

  15.4

  4.6

  4.4

  24.4

  London

  13.4

  4.6

  4.9

  22.9

  North East

  16.3

  5.4

  5.4

  27.2

  North West

  15.7

  5.1

  4.9

  25.6

  South East

  14.5

  3.7

  3.4

  21.6

  South West

  15.2

  3.7

  3.5

  22.4

  West Midlands

  15.7

  5.1

  5.1

  25.9

  Yorkshire and Humber

  15.9

  5.1

  5.0

  25.9

  National average

  15

  5

  4

  24

  Percentage

  Numeracy

  Group A (low)

  Group B (lower)

  Group C (very low)

  Total with poor skills

  East of England

  11.0

  6.3

  4.6

  21.8

  East Midlands

  12.3

  7.1

  5.6

  25.0

  London

  10.7

  6.6

  5.8

  23.0

  North East

  13.3

  8.3

  6.8

  28.4

  North West

  12.6

  7.6

  6.2

  26.5

  South East

  10.5

  6.0

  4.4

  20.8

  South West

  10.7

  6.8

  5.3

  22.7

  West Midlands

  12.8

  7.7

  6.4

  26.9

  Yorkshire and Humber

  12.7

  7.8

  6.3

  26.7

  National average

  12

  7

  5

  24

  Note:

  Small errors of ±0.1 per cent. may exist due to rounding

  The international adult literacy surveys published as "Adult Literacy in Britain" (1997) and "Adult Literacy in Northern Ireland" (1998), used a different methodology to provide data for adults of working age (16–65) who are at level 1 or below for literacy and numeracy. These show that levels of literacy and numeracy were, England (21 per cent. to 23 per cent.), respectively Wales (24 per cent. to 25 per cent.), Scotland (23 per cent. to 24 per cent.) and Northern Ireland (24 per cent. to 25 per cent.).

  Since these surveys were carried out new standards for basic skills have been published by the QCA that establish equivalencies between basic and key skills. A key element of our new national strategy for basic skills, which will be launched in February, is a new baseline survey based on these standards that will provide us with a clearer understanding of the challenge we face to raise the levels of adult literacy and numeracy.

  Driver Training Courses
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people received funding for driver training courses under the New Deal between 1 January and 30 September 2000; and how many passed their tests. [146052]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]We do not collect detailed statistics on the number of young people who received funding for driver training courses under the New Deal. Support for driving lessons is one of
  554W
  which have levels of literacy and numeracy below that expected of an average 11-year-old. The results are contained in the following tables.

  many forms of discretionary support advisers can offer young people on an individual basis if that will help them find a job.

  AS-levels
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary to State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the AS level examination, and on its implications for university admissions; and if he will make a statement. [146238]

  Mr. Wicks
  One representation has been received since September. We introduced the AS level qualification as part of the "Qualifying for Success" reforms. The reforms have generally been welcomed by HEI institutions. This is the first year of the reforms and we have been impressed by the response of schools, colleges, and students to them.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the levels of grades required at AS level to secure admission to universities. [146239]

  Mr. Wicks
  None.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he is planning to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day. [146374]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]In the week preceding Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) we will raise awareness of the day through a series of articles about the Holocaust on the Department's electronic News Centre. We will also he placing backdrops and posters referring to HMD in the reception areas of each of the Department's main sites. A number of our staff will be representing the Department at the HMD national ceremony on 27 January.

  An Education Pack to support the commemoration of HMD in schools was launched on 9 November. Copies of the pack will be available for those staff within the Department who wish to understand more about what can be learned from the Holocaust and the issues it raises.

  New Deal
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) on what basis the time spent by Employment Service staff on New Deal activities is apportioned to the appropriate New Deal budget; [146423]

  (2) how much expenditure was undertaken by the Employment Service in relation to the New Deal and apportioned to New Deal budgets in each of the last three financial years. [146424]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 December 2000, Official Report, columns 264–65W.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to abolish tuition fees for full-time students. [146692]

  Mr. Wicks
  No. The student finance arrangements that we introduced share the cost of higher education fairly between students, their families and taxpayers generally, and provide essential resources for investment in universities and colleges. The Government have invested £1.7 billion (18 per cent. in real terms) in additional planned resources in higher education in England over the six years between 1998–99 and 2003–04. Next year, for the first time since the 1980s, the higher education sector will receive a real increase in funding per student.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school playing fields and what total land area of school playing fields have been sold in(a) the Lewes constituency and (b) East Sussex as a whole in each of the last 10 years. [146693]

  Jacqui Smith
  Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. An estimated 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way under the previous Government. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced, with effect from 1 October 1998, to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Local authorities and governing bodies of al maintained schools are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields, or any part of a playing field.

  Applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields are approved only when it is clear that any proceeds will be returned to education or used to improve or enhance sports provision. From this spring, all applications will be scrutinised by a new panel that has been set up, comprising representatives of the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  Since October 1998, there have been no applications to sell playing fields in either (a) the constituency of Lewes or (b) East Sussex as a whole.

  Notes:

  1. All sale proceeds are used to provide new or improved sports or education facilities at maintained schools.

  556W

  2. 37 per cent. of approved applications were in respect of sports pitches at closed or closing schools.

  3. In 62 per cent. of cases at operating schools, the sale proceeds have been used to provide new or enhanced sports facilities, including sports halls, all-weather pitches or improved grass sports pitches.

  4. 'Sports pitch' means an area of open grassed land which is equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended 2,000 sq m area for games played by under-10s and which has a configuration making it suitable for sports, whether laid out as a sports pitch or not.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Decision-making Process
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the objectives of the Swedish presidency to increase the transparency of decision making in the European Union. [145048]

  Mr. Vaz
  This Government, like Sweden, place a very high priority on increasing transparency in the European Union. One of the presidency's key objectives will be to reach agreement on the draft regulation on public access to Council, Commission and European Parliament documents by May of this year. We will do all we can to support them in securing arrangements which provide greater openness and a user-friendly system.

  Western Sahara (Peace Process)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding recent developments in the peace process for Western Sahara. [145049]

  Mr. Hain
  The UN is continuing its peace efforts in the Western Sahara through the Secretary-General who has expressed frustration with both main parties—Morocco and the Polisario Front—for lacking the political will to settle the dispute. We urge both sides to bring meaningful proposals to their next talks, now expected sometime in February.

  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the EU charter of fundamental rights. [145050]

  Mr. Vaz
  The charter was proclaimed on 7 December at the Nice European Council.

  Promotion of human rights is something to be proud of. The charter sets out for the first time, clearly and in a single document, a range of fundamental rights, freedoms and principles recognised within the EU. People need to know their rights, and the EU institutions need to respect them. The charter will help on both counts.

  The charter is a political declaration; it is not legally binding. It was neither incorporated, nor attached nor referred to in the treaties, just as we said.

  The Government have made clear their support for the charter. We have also made clear our view that it should remain a political declaration.

  HIV/AIDS (Southern Africa)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic in southern Africa. [145051]

  Mr. Hain
  We worked hard to put HIV/AIDS high on the agenda of the G8 summit in Okinawa last year and to raise the profile of the issue in the United Nations. We are also working closely with the Department for International Development to ensure the extensive UK aid programme in southern Africa has the political support it needs.

  UK-US Relations
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the new United States Secretary of State to discuss arms control. [145052]

  Mr. Hain
  The United States is Britain's closest ally and we enjoy excellent co-operation across a wide range of defence and security issues. NATO provides the cornerstone of our relationship. Co-operation between Britain and the US will continue after the change of US Administration, not least because a close working relationship is the best way of advancing our mutual interests and safeguarding our collective security.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new Administration in the US on the future role of NATO. [145054]

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the incoming United States Administration on national missile defence proposals. [145059]

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new United States Administration on issues relating to defence and disarmament. [145061]

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new United States Administration on strategic defence and disarmament. [145065]

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK-US defence co-operation. [145043]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United States is Britain's closest ally and we enjoy excellent co-operation across a wide range of defence and security issues. NATO provides the cornerstone of our relationship. Co-operation between Britain and the US will continue after the change of US Administration, not least because a close working relationship is the best way of advancing our mutual interests and safeguarding our collective security.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [145055]
  558W
  Mr. Hain
  We remain very concerned about both political and economic developments in Zimbabwe. Violence again marred election campaigning in the run-up to the by-election earlier this month. We condemn all acts of violence and urge the Government and Opposition to work to ensure that elections are the free choice of the people of Zimbabwe, without violence, intimidation or fear.

  The economic situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate with the key indicators pointing to a deepening crisis in 2001: more job loses, high inflation, shrinking growth, and shortages of foreign exchange. We look to the Government of Zimbabwe to take determined action to reverse Zimbabwe's economic decline.

  Tibet
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had with China on the future of Tibet. [145056]

  Mr. Battle
  We regularly discuss the future of Tibet with the Chinese authorities and urge them to engage in a meaningful dialog re with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, on a long-term political solution. During the last round of our bilateral human rights dialogue with China, held in London between 16 and 18 October, the Chinese side briefed us on the resumed contacts with representatives of the Dalai Lama. We welcomed this development and regent indications that the dialogue was continuing to take place. We will continue to press the Chinese authorities to advance the dialogue to a satisfactory conclusion.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the(a) extent of and (b) implications of migration of Han Chinese into Tibet. [146720]

  Mr. Battle
  We are monitoring the extent and causes of Han migration into Tibet. We addressed the issue during the last round of the UK/China human rights dialogue held in London between 16–18 October. We stressed the importance of ensuring that indigenous Tibetans benefit from the economic development driving the migration, and the need to preserve and promote Tibetan cultural, traditional and religious practices.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to recognise the Tibet in Government in exile if the Chinese authorities continue to refuse to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama. [146715]

  Mr. Battle
  We do not recognise the Tibetan "Government in Exile", nor do we have any plans to revise this position.

  We welcome recent indications that the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama have resumed a dialogue. We will continue to stress to the Chinese the importance this Government places on the two sides reaching agreement on a long-term political solution in Tibet.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Tibet. [146718]
  559W
  Mr. Battle
  The human rights situation in Tibet remains a matter of deep concern Restrictions on the freedoms of religion, expression and association, the harsh treatment of dissidents and the erosion of Tibetan culture and traditional practices continue. We have welcomed the re-establishment of contacts between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama since mid-2000, and hope that these will go on to address these important issues.

  Tibet remains a major focus of our critical engagement with the Chinese authorities, at ministerial level and through the regular UK/China human rights dialogues. We will continue to press for a long-term political solution in Tibet between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama, and the full respect for human rights in Tibet.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the impact of current Chinese policy on the culture and historic environment of Tibet. [146748]

  Mr. Battle
  We continue monitoring the effects of Chinese policy towards the cultural heritage and traditional practices in Tibet. Of particular concern is the "re-education" programme of Buddhist monks and nuns, restrictions on freedom of religion and the handling of Han migration into Tibet. We raise these and other issues relating to Tibet, in detail during our regular UK/China human rights dialogues.

  With EU partners, we supported a demarche by the French ambassador in Beijing in August 2000, expressing concern at the expulsion of representatives of the Tibet heritage fund, which works to preserve religious sites in Lhasa.

  We will continue to press the Chinese to work towards maintaining the unique culture and heritage of Tibet. We will do so again during the next dialogue round in Beijing between 12–14 February.

  Export Licences
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors underlay the advice given by his Department to the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the declined export licence applications 14478 and 14146. [145057]

  Mr. Hain
  We do not comment on the specific factors underlying refusal of the individual export licence applications. The company concerned has been given the reason for refusal.

  All export licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria and in the case of India and Pakistan against the Lloyd Statement of 10 July 1998. In the application of the above criteria, account is taken of reliable evidence, including, for example, reporting from diplomatic posts, relevant reports by international bodies, intelligence and information from open sources and non-governmental organisations.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a560W
  statement on the failure of the 1999 Lusaka peace accord to maintain a stable peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [145058]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to support the Lusaka agreement, which remains the only viable means of achieving a just and stable peace in the region. The death of President Kabila has provided a new chance of peace. We have urged the new DRC leadership and all other parties to seize this opportunity to implement Lusaka in full.

  Middle East
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the peace process in the middle east. [145062]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given in the House earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).

  Lorry Deaths (Dover)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in reaching agreement with the Chinese Government for the return to China of the remains of the 58 young people found dead at Dover. [145063]

  Mr. Battle
  The bodies of the 58 Chinese nationals who died at Dover were repatriated to China on 18 January. We reached agreement with the Chinese Government that the bodies should be returned to the Fujian province of China, their place of origin, to be laid to rest by the immediate relatives there.

  Diplomatic Estate
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ambassadorial and consular offices and houses(a) have been and (b) are due to be sold since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145064]

  Mr. Battle
  From 1 April 1997 to date, four Embassy/Consular buildings, eight official residences and 99 other units of residential accommodation have been sold.

  It is not possible to provide details of properties which might be sold in the future. The estate is regularly reviewed to ensure that all our properties provide value for money. We also seek to modernise the estate to meet the needs of the 21st century.

  Cuba
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Cuba. [145066]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith),Official Report, columns 788–89.

  Iraq
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with opposition groups in Iraq about the effect of sanctions. [145067]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers and officials keep in regular contact with representatives of the Iraqi opposition on all aspects of our Iraq policy. The Iraqi National Congress, perhaps the most significant opposition grouping, makes clear that it holds Saddam Hussein directly responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people, and wishes to ensure that he can never again attack his own people or his neighbours with weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Iraq. [145069]

  Mr. Hain
  Ten years after the outbreak of the Gulf war, we remember the allied service-men who lost their lives in the successful operation to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Kuwait is now prospering free from Iraqi tyranny. However, we should not forget the Kuwaitis missing since the occupation. I urge Iraq to co-operate with the Tripartite Commission, which is tracing the Kuwaiti missing.

  Since the Gulf war, our policy has contained the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. In the last 10 years, Iraq has not used chemical weapons against the Kurds or Iran or invaded its neighbours. Nor has it fired Scud missiles at Israel or Saudi Arabia. Before sanctions, Iraq did all of these. That is why Britain will continue to support sanctions and the no-fly zones until Iraq no longer represents a threat. This anniversary should be a reminder to us all of why it is necessary to contain the Iraqi threat now as it was 10 years ago.

  United Nations Security Council resolution 1284 offers Iraq a way out of sanctions. It allows for the suspension of sanctions in return for Iraqi co-operation with UN weapons inspectors. Britain wants to see sanctions suspended. Critics of sanctions should unite with us in calling on the regime to take up this offer rather than playing into Saddam's hands by supporting his defiance of the UN and international law and prolonging sanctions. Sanctions could be suspended in a matter of months if UN weapons inspectors are allowed into Iraq to control Saddam's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities, which are threatening the region.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the United Nations Security Council expert panel report on the link between diamonds and the arms trade in Sierra Leone. [145068]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen James),Official Report, columns 792–931.

  North American Free Trade Agreement
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations 562W
  he has received from (a) the new US administration and (b) Republican members of the US Congress about the UK strengthening links with NAFTA. [145070]

  Mr. Vaz
  None.

  Iran (Jewish Population)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of Jews in Iran. [145072]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody),Official Report, column 794.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Turkish counterpart; and what issues they discussed. [R] [145053]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Cem in the margins of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vienna in November. They discussed the EU/Turkey accession partnership, the UN sponsored Cyprus settlement talks and European defence. They also met at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Brussels in December.

  Denmark
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of relations between the UK and Denmark; and if he will make a statement. [145060]

  Mr. Vaz
  Relations are excellent. Last year, Queen Margrethe II paid a highly successful State visit to Britain, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Copenhagen for bilateral talks, and eight other ministerial visits took place. My right hon. Friend had talks in London with the new Danish Minister last week.

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representation he has made to(a) Ministers in Myanmar and (b) Ministers in Bangladesh on Bangladesh's latest offer of peace talks; and if he will make a statement. [146879]

  Mr. Battle
  No British representations have been made in the dispute between Burma and Bangladesh. We understand that the Governments of Burma and Bangladesh have had several contacts about the recent clashes. We hope that these and future discussions will resolve any outstanding problems.

  Krishna Maharaj
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from Clive Stafford Smith OBE, the Justice Center and others in relation to intervention in the Florida capital case of the British citizen, Krishna Maharaj; and if he will make a statement. [144464]
  563W
  Mr. Hain
  Clive Stafford Smith was in regular contact with our consular staff in Atlanta and Ministers in London during Maharaj's hearings in 1997. Additionally, Mr. Stafford Smith met briefly with Linda Nassar, our vice consul in Orlando, while attending the hearings. He also discussed the case informally with Sir John Kerr, then our ambassador to Washington. Since then he has been in occasional contact with consular staff in Atlanta.

  Most recently officials in the FCO's consular division met with him and others on 4 January to discuss Mr. Maharaj's case. This followed a series of communications in December, written and oral, between officials and Mr. Stafford Smith and others.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from the People's Republic of China about the use of depleted uranium weapons by NATO. [146437]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]The Foreign Secretary has had no representations from the People's Republic of China on this issue.

  Panchen Lama
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in identifying the location and condition of the Panchen Lama. [146721]

  Mr. Battle
  We take every suitable opportunity to press the Chinese authorities to allow access to Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Dalai Lama's choice as Panchen Lama, by an independent and respected figure to assess his health and living conditions. They maintain that the parents of the boy do not want him exposed to international attention. During the last round of the EU/China human rights dialogue in September 2000, the Chinese Government indicated that the boy was living in Nagqu.

  During the last round of the UK/China human rights dialogue (16–18 October 2000) the Chinese side displayed two photographs purporting to be of the boy, but declined to provide copies. I have personally stressed to the Chinese ambassador in London the importance of releasing the photographs. We will press this point again during the next round of the UK/China human rights dialogue, scheduled for 12–14 February in Beijing.

  China (Human Rights)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the compliance of the Chinese Government with those agreements with human rights aspects agreed by that Government since 1997. [146717]

  Mr. Battle
  The Chinese Government signed the international covenants on economic, social and cultural rights, and on civil and political rights, in October 1997 and 1998 respectively.

  China is not bound by the provisions of both covenants until instruments of ratification have been submitted to the UN Secretary-General. The Chinese authorities are yet to fully comply with a number of provisions, in both
  564W
  covenants, including those pertaining to freedom of religion, the use of the death penalty and establishment of free trade unions.

  We continue to urge the Chinese to move promptly towards ratification and implementation of the covenants, with a minimum of reservations. We are working with them to identify areas in which we can provide technical assistance to help move this process forward.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will support a resolution condemning the Chinese Government at the 57th meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights. [146716]

  Mr. Battle
  We and our partners are considering the EU' s approach towards China at the forthcoming 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights to be held in Geneva between 19 March and 27 April. This process has not yet been concluded.

  Mercenary Activity
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish the Green Paper on mercenary activity; and if he will make a statement. [145583]

  Mr. Hain
  Officials are continuing work on the Green Paper. The issue is new and complex. It is important to work through the details.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) non-governmental organisations, (b) commercial interests, companies and service organisations, (c) foreign Governments and (d) academic or other experts who his Department has formally consulted regarding the Green Paper on mercenary activity; and if he will make a statement. [145463]

  Mr. Hain
  In working on the Green Paper, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are drawing on material from a variety of sources, including academic writers, NGOs and others. They are also looking carefully at examples of relevant action in other countries.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representations he has received on the(a) timing and (b) content of the Green Paper on mercenary activity from (i) non-governmental organisations, (ii) commercial interests, companies and service organisations, (iii) foreign Governments and (iv) other categories; and if he will make a statement. [145462]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answers I gave today to his other questions on the subject of the Green Paper.

  Sri Lanka
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to appoint a special envoy to hold talks with Sri Lankan leaders on the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [146870]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no plans. Norway has appointed an envoy who is actively engaged in trying to facilitate peace negotiations, which we fully support.
  565W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to(a) Norway and (b) Sri Lanka, on the talks of the Norwegian special envoy with Sri Lankan leaders on the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [146873]

  Mr. Hain
  We maintain frequent contact with both Sri Lanka and Norway and will do all we can to support Norway's attempts to facilitate peace negotiations between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE.

  China (Missile Base)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to Chinese Ministers regarding the building by China of a base in the south eastern Fujian province for the deployment of advanced Russian-made S-300 ground-to-air missiles; and if he will make a statement. [146878]

  Mr. Battle
  We have made no representations to the Chinese Government on any such deployment.

  India (Missiles)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Indian Ministers regarding the test firing of intermediate range ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads; and if he will make a statement. [146874]

  Mr. Hain
  We have not had the opportunity yet to have discussions with the Indian Government regarding the missile test on 17 January. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued the following statement on the day of the test:"The UK regrets India's decision to test the Agni II Medium Range Ballistic Missile on 17 January. The UK believes that restraint in developing nuclear weapons and possible delivery systems is in the long-term interests of India and the region. The UK continues to urge India to take the steps set out in UNSCR 1172. The test sends the wrong signal within the region and beyond".

  Eiman April Grant
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) Philippine leaders and (b) the family of Eiman April Grant regarding her whereabouts; and if he will make a statement. [146877]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Ambassador and his staff in Manila have been in close contact with senior Philippine Government Ministers and officials, the military and investigators working on the case. The British embassy is also in contact with Mr. Grant to update him on developments. The embassy helped to co-ordinate a very effective operation by the armed forces of the Philippines to evacuate Eiman's British half-sister to Manila.

  The embassy will continue to press for a peaceful and speedy resolution.

  Aceh
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has 566W
  made to President Wahid on his support for a new month-long truce with rebels in the province of Aceh; and if he will make a statement. [146881]

  Mr. Battle
  We welcome the recently agreed moratorium on violence in Aceh. We hope this will allow both sides to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, through dialogue rather than force. The European Union issued a statement on 12 January calling on both sides to abide by the terms of the moratorium on violence and to show the utmost restraint on the ground. We will continue to watch developments closely.

  Kaliningrad
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) Russian leaders, (b) the American Administration and (c) NATO leaders regarding the movement of short-range nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad; and if he will make a statement. [146875]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have discussed this issue with NATO allies, including the United States.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support international inspections of military nuclear facilities at Kaliningrad. [146876]

  Mr. Vaz
  Inspections of Russian military deployments in Kaliningrad can be carried out under a range of existing arms control treaties. However these do not extend to military nuclear facilities.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Indonesian Ministers on tear gas fired by police at protesters on 17 January; and if he will make a statement. [146880]

  Mr. Battle
  We understand that there was a demonstration by several thousand protesters outside the Indonesian Parliament calling for President Wahid to step down. When the demonstrators tried to force their way into the grounds of the Parliament on 17 January, the security forces responded with tear gas. We are not aware of any clashes or casualties. While we have concerns at the human rights record of the Indonesian police, on this occasion they appear to have been legitimately protecting Government buildings and staff. We have not made any representations to the Indonesian authorities on this particular event, but we continue to monitor closely events in Indonesia.

  European Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which parts of the provisional text of the treaty of Nice provide the Presidencies for 2001 with political tasks and initiatives on behalf of the European Council; and for what reasons these duties were supported by Her Majesty's Government; [144777]
  567W
  (2) if he will list the parts of the provisional text of the Treaty of Nice which provide the presidencies for 2001 with political tasks and initiatives on behalf of the European Council, indicating the reasons for Her Majesty's Government's support in each case. [146025]

  Mr. Vaz
  A declaration agreed at Nice, and contained in Annexe IV of the draft treaty, deals with work on the future institutional development of the EU.

  The conference calls for a deeper and wider debate about the future development of the European Union, involving all with an interest including the peoples of Europe and the candidate countries. The Swedish and Belgian Presidencies have been mandated to take this consultative exercise forward. In Warsaw, the Prime Minister said that we should start the debate about Europe with the question of what the people of Europe want, and the Government strongly support the consultative exercise.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EU colleagues about combating drug trafficking within the European Union. [145322]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have regular meetings with European Union colleagues, where the issue of combating drug trafficking is discussed, including attendance at the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council and other forums. Last year, the United Kingdom successfully negotiated key elements of the Prime Minister's initiative on drugs, aimed at strengthening the European Union response to drugs problems, into the European Union Action Plan on Drugs 2000–04. The United Kingdom is also playing a central role in European Union-funded drugs twinning projects in Bulgaria and Romania designed to block the Balkans drug trafficking route into the European Union.

TREASURY

  Census 2001
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about Government policy and administrative practice with regard to the destruction of the questionnaire forms that are to be delivered to households for the 2001 census of population for England and Wales. [146448]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John M. Taylor, dated 23 January 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent request for a statement about the Government's policy and administration practice with regard to the destruction of the 2001 Census forms in England and Wales (146448).
  The traditional practice has been to retain the original completed census forms as a permanent public archive under the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958. As you are aware, such records are closed for 100 years under the further provision of the Lord Chancellor's Instrument no. 12 (1966).
  568W
  In agreement with the Public Records Office (PRO), it has been decided that it is more cost effective to archive the 2001 Census forms on microfilm for retention by the Office for National Statistics until the records are transferred to the PRO. This decision is entirely consistent with the PRO's current programme of microfilming its records of previous censuses, which is currently underway.
  Microfilming the 2001 Census returns will be carried as part of the contractual arrangements with Lockheed Martin for processing the 2001 Census. The 2001 Census forms themselves will be destroyed under strictly controlled and secure conditions once we are content that all the data has been captured and checked.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the measures he(a) has taken and (b) is planning to take to prevent and detect fraudulent claims of working families tax credit. [146993]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The measures taken to prevent and detect fraudulent claims to the Working Families Tax Credit include redesigned application forms and guidance to make applications easier to complete while warning of the consequences of incorrect and fraudulent applications. Staff dealing with tax credit applications have been trained to explain the importance of providing correct and complete information. Staff also have powers to obtain information in support of an application where required and to check information provided by applicants against the relevant details already held. Risk assessments of applications based on accumulated Inland Revenue and DSS experience of fraudulent claims are also carried out, together with formal inquiries by specialist staff into applications identified as requiring further investigation. Where fraud is found to have taken place, financial penalties can be imposed and in the most serious cases applicants may be prosecuted.

  As to future plans, I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 16 November 2000, Official Report, column 758W.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the regulatory impact assessment for the climate change levy. [146419]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]It was published in April 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146935]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Slough parliamentary constituency, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the General Election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 1,078, or 40 per cent.; youth unemployment is down by 83 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 73 per cent. The claimant count rate in December 2000 was only 2.1 per cent., well below the UK average.
  569W
  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of October 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 824 young people in the Slough constituency to gain valuable skills and experience—371 (45 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle-income families. In August 2000, 1,400 families in Slough constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to developing policies which enable all pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. As a result of the recent pre-Budget report, all pensioners, including 13,300 in the Slough constituency, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners age 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 8,000 in the Slough constituency.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of UK GDP his Department expects will be devoted to total health spending in the fiscal year 2004–05. [146960]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In last year's Spending Review, the Chancellor provided for a significant increase in UK health expenditure for the years up to 2003–04. Based on the current GDP forecast, total health spending could therefore reach around 7.6 per cent. of GDP in 2003–04.

  As the public spending plans for 2004–05 will not be announced until nearer the time, in the normal way, it is not yet possible to provide a figure for total health care in 2004–05.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has issued to other Departments about the rights to receive windfall profits as part of Private Finance Initiative deals; and how many Departments have agreed such deals(a) in accordance and (b) not in accordance with such guidance. [146839]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Guidance on the refinancing of PFI projects is contained in the Standardisation of PFI Contracts publication produced by the Treasury Taskforce in 1999. This was supplemented by Treasury guidance in July 2000 which alerted Departments to emerging issues in this area; and by guidance from the Office of Government Commerce in November, which proposed that Departments seek an equitable share of refinancing benefits where their consent was required, and where the contract did not cover the terms of that consent. The OGC expects to publish further guidance shortly. Detailed contractual information is not held centrally.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Inland Revenue did not access the child benefit records held by the Benefits Agency before issuing claim forms for the children's tax credit. [146108]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]Existing data on taxpayers were more likely to produce a better match to those eligible to claim the Children's Tax Credit. A large proportion of Child Benefit recipients are non-taxpayers.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 458W, on the children's tax credit if he will make a statement on the publicity which has been undertaken; how much it cost; how much he proposes to spend by the end of February on further publicity; and what form that further publicity will take. [146321]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]To date, the publicity campaign for the Children's Tax Credit has consisted of radio and press advertising. It has been conducted over two phases and cost £3 million.

  A further phase of publicity is planned in February which includes TV, as well as radio and press. It is estimated that this will cost just under £4.7 million.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many completed children's tax credit forms have been returned from each region of the United Kingdom. [146355]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of taxing child benefit(a) for upper rate tax payers and (b) at the marginal rate for all tax payers. [146252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated yield of taxing child benefit in 2000–01 is published in "Inland Revenue Statistics 2000", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. The full year yield of taxing child benefit for higher rate taxpayers in 2000–01 is estimated to be £60 million.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 343W, concerning capital gains tax indexation, what estimate he has made of the behavioural effects arising from re-introducing indexation and abolishing taper relief, while reintroducing retirement relief on the revenue yield. [146153]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The Government remain committed to the system of taper relief within capital gains taxation so no detailed analyses of the behavioural effects of abolishing taper relief while reintroducing indexation and retirement relief have been made.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of capital gains tax is paid by income tax payers with a taxable income below(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000 and (c) £30,000 per year. [146260]
  571W
  Dawn Primarolo
  For 1997–98, the latest available year, the distribution of capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities of individual CGT taxpayers, by range of their taxable income, is as follows:

  Capital gains tax: individuals 1997–98

  Taxable income: Lower limit

  Proportion of total capital gains tax (Per cent.)

  £0

  10.6

  £10,000

  6.3

  £20,000

  6.4

  £30,000

  76.8

  All ranges

  100

  Note:

  For 1997–98, 140 thousand individual takpayers had total CGT liabilities of £1,637 million.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average benefit of(a) the exemption of capital gains tax on first homes and (b) the annual exempt amount of capital gains tax and the number of people who will benefit from each in 2001–02. [146258]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tentative estimates of the total cost of these exemptions for 2000–01 are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner, November 2000, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Estimates for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mapeley Ltd.
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the STEPS contract between his Department and Mapeley Ltd. for the transfer to Mapeley Ltd. of the ownership and management of the combined estate of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise has yet been finalised; and when the planned starting date is. [147030]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The two Departments and Mapeley are finalising a few technical details.

  The implementation programme is on schedule for the contract to start as planned.

  Pensions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of restricting the value of the(a) employee pension contributions and (b) employer pension contributions to (i) the basic rate of taxation and (ii) 10 per cent. [146257]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the full year yield for 2000–01 of restricting income tax relief for employees' and employers' contributions to occupational and personal pensions (including additional voluntary contributions) are given in the table. They do not take account of any behavioural effects which are likely to result from such changes.

  £ billion

  Yield from restricting income tax relief to:

  Relief for pension contributions

  22 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  Employees1

  1.3

  3.3

  Employers2

  1.9

  5.3

  572W

  1 Based on a projection, consistent with pre-Budget Report 2000, of the 1998–99 Survey of Personal Incomes and other survey and administrative data

  2 Based on a projection, consistent with pre-Budget Report 2000, of figures compiled by the Office for National Statistics from a variety of sources

  Termination of Employment Payment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of reducing the exemption of the first £30,000 of payments on the termination of employment to(a) £15,000, (b) £10,000 and (c) nil. [146256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the income tax yield in a full-year from reducing the exemption on the first £30,000 of payments on the termination of employment are shown in the table. These estimates do not allow for possible behavioural effects.

  Reducing exemption to:

  Tax yield (£ million)

  £15,000

  350

  £10,000

  500

  Nil

  1,100

  Plant and Machinery (Capital Allowances)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the estimates and outturns for the allowances for plant and machinery in the Budgets for the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 and the estimated outturn for 2000–2001. [146851]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the published Financial Statement and Budget Reports for the estimated revenue effects of the Budget changes made to capital allowances for plant and machinery.

  Outturn figures are not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost from 30 September to 30 December 2000 of the Saville Inquiry was; if he will break down the costs by(a) salaries of staff, (b) travel and subsistence, (c) accommodation, (d) hearing/witness costs, (e) fees to solicitors representing those killed, (f) solicitors representing others, (g) banisters representing those killed, (h) banisters representing others, (i) IT/communications and (j) miscellaneous, including general office expenditure; and if he will provide the totals of each heading and the total costs since this inquiry began. [145525]

  Mr. Ingram
  My Department's expenditure on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry for the period 1 October to 31 December 2000 is summarised in the table. The figures for moneys paid to solicitors and banisters cannot be readily provided separately, nor can the payments for their professional services be separated from other expenses. However these payments have been split between those to lawyers representing families and those to other lawyers, including Counsel to the Inquiry.
  573W

  £

  Spend for period 1 October to 31 December 2000

  Spend since 1997–98 to 31 December 2000

  Salaries

  371,307

  2,440,962

  Travel and subsistence

  98,010

  636,602

  Accommodation

  343,689

  2,281,318

  Hearing/Witness Costs

  195,892

  1,658,848

  Payments to lawyers representing the families of those dead or wounded

  1,479,359

  5,650,150

  Payments to other lawyers (including Counsel) to the Inquiry

  516,477

  11,666,091

  IT/Communications

  1,118.484

  8,183,302

  Miscellaneous including general office expenditure

  129,818

  1,317,631

  Total

  4,253,035

  33,834,904

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since I May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144075]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  £

  Project/Consultant

  Expenditure since 1 May 1997

  (a)Outside Consultants

  Strategic Skills for Senior Women

  Office for Public Management

  46,276.10

  Management Development Programme

  KHCA Ltd.

  98,409.05

  Health and Safety

  ACT Associates

  4,650.77

  Liberty Risk

  822.50

  Manual Handling

  235.00

  Total

  5,708.27

  Investors in People

  Solutions Insight

  12,789.64

  Focus Quality Services

  11.586.10

  PI Management Ltd.

  1,724.90

  Total

  26,100.64

  Away Days/Teambuilding

  Chameleon Consultancy

  10,316.50

  H. Campbell Cons.

  900.00

  HMC Communications

  2,000.00

  Total

  13,216.50

  Deaf Awareness

  Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  531.10

  Diversity Awareness Training

  Domino Consultancy

  2,123.23

  574W

  £

  Project/Consultant

  Expenditure since 1 May 1997

  360 Degree Feedback Development Programme

  ITS

  2,255

  Total expenditure

  194,619.89

  (b) Academic Researchers

  0

  (c) University Departments

  Human Rights Act Specialist Training

  Queens University

  3,790.56

  Equality Awareness Training

  R. Steele, Queens University

  1,650.00

  Total Expenditure

  5,440.56

  Police Training
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) joint FBI and RUC funded police training programmes since 1990 and their costs and (b) if he will make a statement on the future of joint FBI and RUC training programmes under the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. [142317]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is available only from 1994. Details of the expenditure is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Since then a total of five officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary have attended training at the FBI National Academy. A further 25 officers have attended FBI conferences in Europe. In 1999, 25 RUC officers attended the FBI Joint Leadership Development Programme.

  The Police Service of Northern Ireland in common with other police services throughout the world will take every opportunity offered to it to share and learn best practice.

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

Personality Disorder: Compulsory Treatment Orders
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the extension of compulsory powers for treatment to those suffering from personality disorder, which is proposed in the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act, will violate the human rights of those concerned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Mental Health Act 1983 already applies to people with a psychopathic disorder. When implemented, the proposals set out in our White Paper will strengthen the rights of those who are subject to formal care and treatment. Therefore, through the introduction of independent decision-making in authorising the use of compulsory treatment, we consider that the powers will be fully compliant with the requirements of the Human Rights Act.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Addenbrooke's NHS Trust and the chair of its mental health committee. What guidance does the Minister propose to offer to psychiatrists up and down the country, who, as I believe the Minister knows, currently are very worried, in relation to the diagnosis which they will be asked to carry out as to exactly what is personality disorder when the people concerned have not committed a crime and are not mentally ill and when one person's personality disorder is another person's political dissident or freedom fighter?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I am aware that concern clearly exists with regard to the assessment procedure. Perhaps I may reassure her that a standardised methodology will be in place for the assessment of personality disorder and the risk of serious harm to the public. That will be used as the basis, for example, of reports to a court. We expect that it will take some time to conduct assessments and, in particular, we shall need to ensure a consistency of approach throughout the system. However, I can
126
assure the noble Baroness that we shall work thoroughly to ensure that the clinicians involved are fully aware of their responsibilities.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that there will always be a right of appeal for affected persons and that those who are deprived of liberty will always be reviewed at reasonably frequent intervals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. The mental health tribunals which we propose to establish will be able to review all such cases. Those affected will have the right to ask the tribunal to review their position. When an order is made after the initial 28-day assessment, it will be reviewed automatically after the first six months, the second six months and then at yearly intervals. Therefore, I believe that clear avenues will be open for cases to be reviewed. In addition, independent advocates will be available to help people who seek a review.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether systems are available in the community to monitor people with severe personality disorders?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I welcome back the noble Baroness to your Lordships' House. She will know that I have had to answer rather fewer questions while she has been away.
The noble Baroness has raised an important point. Although fears have been expressed about the number of compulsory treatment orders which may be issued, the reality is that, if our mental health services, particularly in the community, are made sufficiently effective, one hopes that there will be less need for such orders in the future. That is why the National Service Framework for Mental Health emphasises the need for effective community services. I particularly commend the assertive outreach teams. By April 2001, 117 places will be available to deal quickly with the type of problem to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, has the Minister considered the serious criticisms and concerns raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in its brief which has been circulated today? In particular in relation to the detention of those who are said to have a personality disorder but have not committed a crime, how does he envisage that it will be possible to order their detention without infringing their human rights?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have not seen the document circulated by the Royal College of Psychiatrists but I shall, of course, ensure that we study it most carefully. However, I believe that overall the responses which the Government have received in relation to their proposals are positive. The safeguards are clearly in place. I am absolutely satisfied that the existence of the mental health tribunal by which a person may ask for a case to be reviewed and the

127
automatic review of cases in the intervals which I have already mentioned provide an appropriate way of ensuring that no one's rights will be infringed. I believe that the people concerned will have their cases considered in the most effective way possible. As I mentioned, the provision of an independent advocacy service will also ensure that as much support as possible is given to people who ask for their cases to be reviewed.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will it be a valid ground of appeal that the personality defect is not treatable?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has raised an interesting question about the whole issue of what is described as "treatability". A problem which has arisen with regard to the current legislation is that it has not been possible to deal appropriately with people who are considered clinically not to be treatable. I say to the noble and learned Lord that clinical opinion may not be uniformly agreed as to how one describes treatability. Therefore, over the next two years we shall undertake considered work in order to develop an evidence base of research about the treatment of dangerous people with severe personality disorder. There is evidence that a range of interventions are available and that some of those are effective in treating different groups of people with severe personality disorders. On that basis, I believe that we shall be able to resolve the issue of treatability.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance, when such powers are in use, that due regard will be given to the cultural differences between the citizens of the United Kingdom? Already there is a fear that misdiagnosis takes place among British Caribbean people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the issue that my noble friend has raised and which will have to be tackled in a number of ways. The National Health Service framework is designed to ensure a consistency of approach towards any person in this country who requires mental health services. I would expect that principle to be taken forward in relation to the assessment procedures that will need to be operated within the new system. The fact that a care treatment plan will need to work alongside compulsory treatment orders will also ensure a greater uniformity of approach. We would expect the tribunals themselves to be aware of the cultural issues that my noble friend has brought forward.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the divergence of opinions on treatability and the fact that treatments evolve, will the new provision permit patients who are classified in a review as being untreatable to have their untreatability reviewed in such a review?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, that is the point.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: Crack Cocaine
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to amend Sections 8 (in particular subsections (c) and (d)) and 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include crack cocaine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence for the occupier or a person concerned in the management of any premises knowingly to permit controlled drugs to be produced or supplied on the premises. However, it does not extend to the use of controlled drugs such as crack cocaine.
The Government are currently examining the scope for extending Section 8 to include the use of all controlled drugs, but are concerned to ensure that any such change proves effective. They are also mindful of the possible consequences for the voluntary sector and treatment services that work with drug misusers. The Government have no plans to make a similar amendment to Section 9 of the Act.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that the police and particularly local housing authorities, such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—I declare an interest as a member of that authority—are hampered in their efforts to prosecute and evict those involved in the operation of crack houses because crack cocaine is not specifically mentioned in the relevant legislation? Crack cocaine is not mentioned in the 1971 Act because it was not a problem when the Act was enacted. Does he agree that it is absurd that opium dens can be closed on the basis of that Act but that crack houses, which generate violent crime, intimidation and prostitution, cannot be closed? I am glad to hear the Minister say that thought is to be given to amending the Act. I suggest that a simple amendment could be introduced to add crack cocaine to Section 8 and, I hope, Section 9 of the 1971 Act.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her supplementary question. She raises an important issue. As she has no doubt heard, we are giving this matter careful consideration. At the moment the police have the capacity to intervene in a crack house where there is supply and production of drugs. I take her point about the historical nature of the section. It was designed for a time—1971—when opium smoking, in particular, was thought to be an issue. Of course, we need to keep such matters under review and I am grateful to her for drawing this out usefully in this short Question.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that targeting consumption, although important, is only a small endeavour in the war against drugs? What notable achievements have been notched

129
up by the security agencies in taking the fight to the front line of production, distribution and controlling precursor chemicals without which there would be no hard drugs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it goes without saying that to be effective in this area there needs to be intense international co-operation. Of course, Customs and Excise, the police, international policing bodies and security services are all involved in that. Over the past few years there have been a number of stunning successes. It may be worth providing a few statistics. Seizures of cocaine, for instance, have increased from 799 in 1988 to nearly 5,000 in 1998. In 1988 to 1999 seizures of crack in terms of quantity have increased from just 30 to 2,436. There was an increase of 39 per cent in the number of crack seizures between 1997 and 1998. I believe that the international offensive against that dangerous drug is becoming increasingly successful and our law enforcement agencies and bodies are working well to secure those successes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in view of the Minister's sympathetic reply to my noble friend Lady Hanham, perhaps I can press him to say when the Government will deal with this matter. Does he agree that crack is a dangerous drug and that it is widely used by young people? The point raised in the question is a real one. Does the Minister agree that an amendment to the law should not be too difficult and that that would clearly have the support of everybody?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that amending the law might not be too difficult, but it would be difficult to do so in the way in which she suggested. Her suggestion about use might make landlords of properties in some way responsible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has, like myself, been a landlord of socially-owned premises. There is a problem in that context; for that reason, we are giving the matter careful and detailed consideration. We shall do so for a whole range of drugs, not simply crack. We see the problem as a major menace, and we want to tackle it. We are grateful for the support that we receive from all quarters for taking tough and effective action. The Government will always endeavour to take tough and effective action to deal with drugs.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that the matter is under consideration. That is precisely the same answer as was given 12 months ago by the Minister of State in another place. The fact is that during the past five years crack-related deaths have gone up by 500 per cent and, we are told, last year in London alone there were 40 attempted murders which were crack-related. Yet crack houses are still treated by the law more leniently than opium dens or houses in which cannabis is involved. That cannot be right. My noble friend rightly said that such a move by the Government would have wide support.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord returns to the point. However, he was a member of a government which had 18 years in which to make changes to the 1971 Act. I have already explained some of the difficulties associated with the use of Section 8. We are keeping the matter under review.
If we are persuaded of the case and agree that the proposed approach will make drug enforcement, so far as crack is concerned, more effective, we shall do everything that we can to secure that. We believe that effective policing on the ground and the use of powers that already exist are the best way forward. Targeted policing initiatives are directed towards that approach, and we have made extra resources available to achieve that end. Many excellent examples of best practice are being adopted by the police, who are taking the war against drug-related, and, in particular, crack-related, crime to those who are abusing the situation.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Elimination
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that more urgent action should be taken to reduce the danger that a war using nuclear or other means of mass destruction might render earth uninhabitable by mammals.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the Government share the concern of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney about the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Our efforts are devoted to the removal of that threat. We have led the way not just in terms of nuclear disarmament but in international efforts to eradicate all weapons of mass destruction and to address the causes of international conflict.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Government have recently committed themselves publicly to securing the end of nuclear weapons. The problem is that that commitment has not been followed up by action. Do the Government have it in mind to take action along the lines suggested, for example, by the noble and gallant Lord, the Field Marshal, not many months ago in Canberra? He has also raised the matter in the House, but has not yet received an affirmative answer.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend that the Government have not taken action. We have made it crystal clear that our goal is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom is already leading by example. The Government announced significant reductions in Britain's nuclear forces in the Strategic: Defence Review. We have only a single weapons system,

131
Trident, the smallest arsenal of any of the five nuclear weapons states, and we have set the international standard in transparency.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the danger referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, that nuclear weapons could,
"render earth uninhabitable by mammals",
is the basic reason that it is highly unlikely that such weapons will ever be used by, or against, people who have them? That is why they have kept the peace for 50 years, and it is questionable whether we want to eliminate them. If they were eliminated, that might result in wars that would not otherwise take place.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we are all familiar with the theory of deterrence. We surely do not wish to conclude that to eliminate all nuclear weapons would be a bad thing; that, I do not think, could be possible. Some people have doubts about being able to verify the control of nuclear weapons, but we believe that there are ways of doing so. Our Atomic Weapons Research Establishment is examining ways of improving systems of inspection. Our aim remains the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that in 1995 there was an agreement to begin negotiations for a treaty to ban the production of fissile materials and that that call was renewed last year at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference? While I appreciate that the Government have worked very hard on that matter—that is generally appreciated—will my noble friend say what progress has been made?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we have been deeply frustrated by the lack of progress in Geneva at the Conference on Disarmament. That conference's failure to start negotiations on a cut-off treaty for fissile material thus far has certainly not been for want of effort and flexibility on our part. If there is no progress in the coming year, there will be increasing support for reform of the working practices of the Conference on Disarmament. We will have to be ready to look seriously at any ideas that might help to move the situation forward. As your Lordships may well be aware, the conference resumed yesterday in Geneva. The incoming Canadian chair has been trying to broker a compromise agenda during the break, and we of course support his efforts.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, has the Minister noted the comments of the new American Secretary of State, General Colin Powell? His comments were to the effect that a new strategic framework is required as a context within which to rethink the whole question of nuclear deterrence and the development of anti-ballistic missile defences.
132
What contribution have the British Government made to that new framework of thinking so far, or are we content to leave it all to the Americans?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, we look forward to working very closely with the new American Administration. We have always said that we were sympathetic to the concerns of the United States. It would be premature to say how the United States will deal with the various problems that have been outlined. In fact, President Bush made it clear that he is perhaps committed to a national missile defence system as one element of his approach to tackling these problems. However, that Administration have also made it clear, even in the short time that they have been in office, that they have no firm views at this stage on a specific system. They emphasised—this is very important and most welcome—the importance of consulting the allies and the Russians before coming to decisions. We are very much involved with that, and we shall work closely with the Bush Administration. Our defence interests are, and always will be, closely linked with those of the United States.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, further to the point that the Minister made about our relations with Russia, can she also say whether the still-open offer to reconsider disarmament under the Start 2 and Start 3 treaties, which together would bring a huge reduction in nuclear weapons held by Russia and, on the other side, the United States, is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government? Are we making representations to both sides to go ahead with that approach?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as noble Lords are well aware, the Start process is a question for the Americans and the Russians. We have always made it clear that one of our important priorities is that there should be further cuts in the arsenals of the Americans and the Russians. We shall do everything that we can to work to that end.

Council Tax
3 p.m.
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering introducing any additional council tax bands.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we believe that the council tax is working well as a local tax. It has been widely accepted by local taxpayers and is generally well understood, although we will keep the situation under review. A number of respondents to our recent Green Paper on local government finance raised the issue of the banding structure. Although that was not a matter on which the Government had consulted, we will consider what was said.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Are the reports which appeared in the

133
Sunday Times on 7th January—that her right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is studying a wide-ranging restructuring of the council tax system and has promised a White Paper later this year—correct or not?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is correct that we published a Green Paper in September. We shall consider the responses and as a result will be producing a White Paper later this year. In undertaking a process of consultation, the Government will consider all the points raised by respondents, but they have no plans to vary the tax band structure as proposed by the noble Lord.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is the new system of floors and ceilings to the council tax, which appears to have arisen, likely to continue in view of the unsatisfactory way it is working?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government believe that in order to avoid major changes of between 1 and 10 per cent it is wise to allow the floors and ceilings to exist. They protect not only local authorities but local people from wide variations. At present, we cannot envisage a circumstance in which that would be necessary in all years but we shall keep the matter under review.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, given the preponderance of finance which comes from the centre to local authorities, the Government have my sympathy in dealing with local government finance. The Minister will be well aware of my views on the subject. Does she agree that such problems will continue and will be insoluble while the dominating position of central finance continues?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I understand and have known for years the point of view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The position which has faced local government during the past four years—that is, a 13.6 per cent real terms increase in grant—has enabled local authorities to respond more accurately to the needs of their communities. The noble Lord's view was expressed by other colleagues in local government and will be taken into account in considering responses to the consultation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government and the Minister thinking of taxing your Lordships' castles at a higher rate?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I must admit that I do not know whether noble Lords' castles are in Scotland. If so, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. If they are in Wales, it will be a matter for the Welsh Assembly. However, if they are in England I can tell him that at present we have no proposals to vary the tax bands.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not one of the reasons for the proportion of tax to be found by
134
local taxpayers that the business rate was removed from local authorities? Are the Government considering properly returning that tax to be raised by local authorities?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, although I have not seen the responses to the consultation, I am certain that collectively and individually local authorities will have raised that point in response to the Green Paper. We must bear in mind two issues when considering the future of the business rate. The most important is the belief of some local authorities that all the business rate which would be collected within their areas would necessarily go only to that local authority. However, all in local government would accept that in equity it must be redistributed. The noble Lord's view has been expressed and no doubt will continue to be.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, may I urge the Government to re-examine the position of park home owners? The Minister will know that in recent months a working party in which the DETR is involved has been examining the legislation and issues surrounding park home owners. One of the big issues raised by those owners was the level of council tax banding because many properties are at a lower rate than band A. I heard what the Minister said but the matter is urgent. Will she reconsider it?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the issue was raised by my honourable friend David Borrow the Member for South Ribble in another place. Many people living in park homes have put the points expressed by the noble Baroness. We shall bear them in mind.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be helpful for the House to know that all the amendments to Standing Orders were recommended by the Procedure Committee in its third and fourth reports of the last Session. The House agreed to those reports on 19th July and 13th November last year. The Motion which I am now moving is therefore consequential on the agreement that the House gave to those reports.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
After Standing Order 10 (hereditary peers: by-elections)
Insert the following new Standing Order:
Register of hereditary peers
Any hereditary peer (not previously in receipt of a writ of summons) who wishes to be included in the register maintained by the Clerk of the Parliaments pursuant to Standing Order 10(5) shall petition the House and any such petition shall be referred to the

135
Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon whether such peer has established his right to be included in the register.
Standing Order 40 (arrangement of the Order Paper)
After paragraph (6), insert the following new paragraph:
("( ) Any motion relating to a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on a remedial order or draft remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 shall be entered before a motion to approve that order or draft order.")
Standing Order 64 (sessional committees)
After ("House of Lords' Offices Committee") insert ("Human Rights Committee")
Standing Order 72 (affirmative instruments)
In paragraph (1)(a), after ("Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994") insert ("or a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998")
In paragraph (1)(b), after ("Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee") insert:
("( ) in the case of a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
Provided that the report is laid
(i) in the case of a draft remedial order, within 60 days of the laying of the draft order or
(ii) in the case of an order not approved in draft, within 119 days of the making of the original order,
such periods to be calculated in the manner prescribed by Schedule 2 to the Act;")
Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments)
In paragraph (1), after ("Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994") insert ("and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998")
In paragraph (2), line 4, after ("but") insert ("not including any statutory instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament and").—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.7 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. In presenting the report from the Procedure Committee, I should say
136
a few words about items 2 and 3 before dealing with item 1, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
Item 2 clarifies the guidance on Statements in the Companion to Standing Orders and will, I am sure, be welcomed by those who take part in Statements. Item 3 tidies up the procedure at the beginning of a Session when a number of Motions relating to the setting up of committees are taken. Those who remembered those Motions last month will recall that the Leader of the House had to move procedural Motions. As a result, she was questioned about the composition, not me. I did not complain about being able to shelter behind the Leader, but I believe that it is an untidy way to do business. The proposed change would rectify that.
The main item before your Lordships is item 1 of the committee's report. At our meeting, we had a joint paper from the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Henley, proposing to move the general debate day from Wednesday to Thursday on an experimental basis. Wednesdays would then be used for government business.
It was also proposed that general debates on important issues could take place on a small number of Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays during the Session. These changes would be made on an experimental basis until the end of the Session, when the committee and the House would be able to decide whether the experiment had proved successful.
The debate in the committee showed a wide range of opinions. The principal arguments for such a change were that it would give all Members of the House the flexibility of two consecutive non-government days to organise their commitments outside the House. That would be particularly helpful to those Peers whose outside interests and homes were well away from London as such Peers might be able to get away on Wednesday nights or first thing on Thursday mornings if they wished. They would therefore have two clear days to do whatever they wished to do outside the House.
The principal arguments against the change were: that general debates were an important part of the role of the House; that to move them to Thursday might diminish the number of Peers who wished to take part; that there would be reduced attendance, and hence the importance of those debates would be diminished; and there was a danger that the House would follow the other place in what is increasingly seen as a three-day week.
Rather than come to a decision on the matter in the Procedure Committee, it was decided that this issue should be considered by the House as a whole. The only way that the Procedure Committee could do that was to make a recommendation for change and thus report it to the House. If it had decided not to make any change there would have been no report and your Lordships would have been unable to express a view. Therefore, there is no recommendation to make this change but your Lordships should make the decision; in other words, it is a kind of collective passing the buck. I beg to move.

137
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 16).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. The general debate day
The Committee considered a proposal to move the general debate day from Wednesday to Thursday for an experimental period from February 2001 to the end of the present parliamentary session, There would also be, subject to agreement in the usual channels, general debates on important issues on a few Mondays, Tuesdays or Wednesdays.
Certain members of the Committee were opposed to the proposal. They reported opposition among backbenchers they had consulted.
The Committee noted that there was opposition to the proposal, but decided that it was proper that the House itself should debate and decide the issue. If the Committee rejected the proposal, there would be no report from the Committee for the House to debate. For this reason, the Committee recommends the proposal to the House so that the House may decide.
2. Ministerial statements
In March 1999 the Committee recommended that "while there will be exceptions, the time for the two Opposition front benches and the reply to them should be limited to 20 minutes, as for the back benches." It is difficult in practice to define the exceptions, and the reference to exceptions has been omitted from the Companion to the Standing Orders. On some recent occasions, when long statements have led to long contributions from the Opposition front bench spokesmen, the rule has led to ministers cutting short their answers to the spokesmen, in order to comply with the 20 minute limit. The Committee approves the practice of the House that statements should not be made the occasion for immediate debate. However, the Committee recommends that ministers should not cut short their replies, even if this means going beyond the 20 minute limit.
3. En bloc appointment of sessional select committees
The Committee recommends that the Chairman of Committees should, at the beginning of a new session, be entitled to move en bloc the motions appointing select committees, deputy chairmen and any other bodies nominated by the Committee of Selection, without the need for a Business of the House motion. There should instead be an italic notice on the Order Paper of the day informing the House that the Chairman of Committees will, unless any Lord objects, move the motions of appointment en bloc.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to move, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committee's Motion, at end insert "except for item 1".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as is clear from the Order Paper, and made doubly clear by the Chairman of Committees, my amendment relates only to paragraph 1 of the report of the Procedure Committee which deals with the general debate day. I have tabled my amendment for two reasons: first, to draw attention to a proposal of major consequence, which might have been overlooked by the House given the bland item on the Order Paper, following normal precedent; secondly, to enable the House to take a view of an important matter without prejudicing the remaining paragraphs of the report. So often in this House we have a report from the committee, part of which noble Lords want to contest. That often involves a difficult debate and a muddled outcome. I hope that my amendment enables the matter to be made plain and decided upon accordingly.
The Procedure Committee met on 19th December on the eve of the Christmas Recess and its report was revealed for the first time in the Minute on the morning of Wednesday last, which is less than a week ago. Following precedent, there was no signpost to indicate the importance or character of any of the items to be debated today. That I became aware of it when I did I owe to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I simply draw attention to how easily these things may slip by. Following precedent, the fact that we might have such a debate today was not indicated in the weekly schedule of forthcoming business.
This is too important an issue to be passed by the House through half-closed eyes. We should be particularly alert when both the Government and Opposition Chief Whips agree any course of action. Admirable though the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Henley, are, there is always a whiff of sulphur about any suggestion made when they get together. I would have preferred this amendment not to stand in my name because it may confuse noble Lords into believing that it is a peculiarly Liberal Democrat initiative. That is not so. Members on my Benches will have as much freedom as, I believe, all noble Lords to vote whichever way they prefer entirely on the merits of the issue. This should be treated today as a cross-party issue.
A very similar Motion to switch Wednesdays and Thursdays was debated less than two years ago on 22nd March 1999. On that occasion the outcome was decisive: 87 Members voted for change and 224 voted against. I say in parenthesis, in case the issue arises, that on that occasion the Motion for change was not defeated by the hereditary Peers. Among those life Peers present and voting there was a clear majority against change. However, I accept the decision of the Procedure Committee to place the issue before the House today. Nearly 80 of those who voted in 1999 have left the House and over 80 new colleagues have joined us. It is right that the House should look at the matter again, and for my part I have no complaint on that account.
I also acknowledge that, on the face of it, there are substantial arguments on either side. On 22nd March 1999 the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was eloquent for change, as he often is. There was also a fair but forceful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. One particular phrase in his speech that I recall is "proportionate inconvenience", by which he meant that it was necessary to balance the inconvenience caused to Members who lived far from London against the inconvenience to those who lived in or near London if a change took place.
I recognise the argument of inconvenience and balance. I also understand the problems faced by colleagues who live in Scotland, or a hundred miles or more from Westminster, if there are late Thursday sittings. Although I am not in that category, many of my colleagues on these Benches live a distance from the House. Were that the issue I would have concluded that the balance of proportionate inconvenience favoured a change. But the crux of the matter before your Lordships' House is, on the one hand, the

139
convenience of individual Members and, on the other, the future of this House itself. I respectfully suggest to noble Lords that that is the issue to be debated today.
Since the debate on 22nd March 1992 most of our hereditary colleagues have gone. Following election, 92 stayed from choice and there were about 10 others. They have opted to serve in your Lordships' House. In addition, some 80 new Members have joined us. They have opted to serve in this House not under duress and aware of the demands that it will make on their time and the level of inconvenience that they will be caused. With the greatest respect, personal convenience and an easier working week should not be in the forefront of our minds at any time in this House.
I am aware of the particular problem of Back-Benchers on the government side. To be Back-Benchers on the government side, whether in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, is the worst of all fates. One has the rather thankless task of attending day after day with very little to do except support the Government when asked. But that is a price that all of us have paid from time to time in order to sustain our government in power. On behalf of these Benches, that would be a small price to pay for such an opportunity. I shed no tears for those government Back-Benchers who find it a hardship to support the Government and would rather retire earlier to the country, their homes or other jobs outside.
What does the change mean if it occurs? It means that the House will begin to move, perhaps imperceptibly at first, towards a three-day week. Members are quite open about it; they want to be here on Monday afternoon and away on Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. The Chairman of Committees put the point very fairly: Members want to have fewer days when their parliamentary attendance is expected. Therefore, if we make the switch there will be poorer attendance on Thursdays for both general debates and Questions, and, although I do not have time to develop the point, the timetable for legislation will be cramped. That will not happen overnight. It will not happen during a short experiment. But ultimately there will be a diminution in the role of this House and thus in the effectiveness of Parliament. This decision should not be taken lightly, hence the amendment I have laid before the House. I hope that it will not be taken at all. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committee's Motion, at end insert "except for item 1".—(Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.)
Lord Denham: My Lords, I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I have always taken it as a rule that one never changes the procedures in this House until one gets genuine cross-party agreement so to do. My worry is that Wednesdays have always been the prerogative of private Members of this House, a day when they have their debates. They have always been in total charge of Wednesdays. This Motion will alter that. Many very important Wednesday debates have taken place that have led to major legislation and reform, some of which your Lordships would not
140
necessarily agree with. To put a Wednesday debate on to a Thursday in order that voting is more easily done on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday would belittle the general debate in this House and prove an absolute disaster.
There is another issue. By having a general debate on a Wednesday, the government of the day—whichever colour—can only have two Committee days running, either Monday and Tuesday or Thursday and Friday. The idea of having three consecutive days on a major Bill when the Opposition parties and indeed, more importantly, the Back-Benchers do not have the back-up that Her Majesty's Government have, is intolerable. I hope that the Government do not press this issue. If they do, it will not be a proper test at all. We are almost at the start of February with the possibility—I say no more than that—of an early general election. If there is an early election, the certainty is that Private Members' days will be the first casualties in order to get the government business through. Therefore, can we not put this on one side and bring the matter back after the election, whenever that is? It is a terribly important issue.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we should not ignore what has happened in another place. As a result of a change in the time for Prime Minister's Questions, I am told that there has been a great change in attendance in the House of Commons. People tend to be absent on Thursday and Friday. There are repeated allegations that the other place has become a part-time House. I am afraid that could happen here. That is why I support the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and my noble friend Lord Denham.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, one cannot be long in this House before realising that there are two sides to every question. I had no intention of speaking today, but having heard three successive speeches on one side I felt that I should make a few quiet observations. First, it is a rather poor view to hold of Members of the House that they would not bother to stay around for a debate on a subject in which they had a keen interest if it was held on Thursday instead of Wednesday. That seems to me completely false. The debating days will be just as good. There will not be other people hanging around simply waiting for Thursday. It is the participation in those important debates that matters, not the number of people who are around the precincts of the House.
Secondly, with regard to Thursday night, it is not really about whether or not one is away on Thursday. It is that the present procedure involves many Members of the House staying, not until 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock, which might be tolerable, but until 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock or midnight by which time their trains may have left. That is not good for this House. It is particularly bad. If we are frank, we are rather London-oriented, and we could do with keeping up the numbers of people attending the House from outside London.

141
There has been a reference to Back-Benchers. But noble Lords on the Opposition Benches may all be Government Back-Benchers one day, may they not? If, when one agrees to come into this House one is agreeing that one will be forced to stay until midnight, or 1 or 2 o'clock on a Friday morning after one's train has gone, one may think twice about coming here. We shall become a more London-centred organisation.
This is a brief experiment. I should be surprised if Wednesday debates die during the experiment. I believe they will flourish. If I am wrong, we can go back with the greatest of ease. Unless we try the experiment, how will we ever know if it could be successful? I have been in this House long enough to know how often it supports the argument that nothing must change, nothing must be experimented with—the doctrine of unripe time. I believe that the time is ripe to try what is proposed for the brief period until the election. If it goes wrong I shall be the first to support returning to our present arrangements.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, meant what he said when he suggested that he would be perfectly content if, effectively, the only people in this Chamber on what would become Thursday debates were to be those taking part in them rather than listening. Having spent time in both Houses, it seems to me that one of the more agreeable and sensible habits of your Lordships is to listen to arguments before voting.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I did not say those who were taking part in the debate; I said those who were interested in the debate. Many people will of course stay and listen to the debate.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has perhaps a rather more sanguine view of human nature than I. Perhaps in the Economist they are so high-minded that temptations do not arise in the same way as they do for other Members of your Lordships' House. Of course we know how high-minded Members are in another place, but we know, as my noble friend pointed out, that in spite of their good intentions and their high-mindedness the changes which he described there have resulted in effectively a part-time House.
This Chamber was a part-time House for many years, indeed many centuries. In the opinion of many conservative—with a small "c"—Members of your Lordships' House, it was all the better for it. However, I suggest to your Lordships that in one important respect the nature of Parliament has changed. There has been an increasing avalanche of ill-prepared legislation which makes it virtually impossible for this House to be a part-time House any more. If the price of proper legislation is eternal vigilance, the eternal vigilance must be here rather than in another place, because another place is the creature of the executive. Therefore, anything that aids the Government's clear intention to make this House into a legislative "sausage machine"—to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—is one that we should question.
142
The point made by my noble friend Lord Denham is the key one here if we are to judge this issue by the correct standard, which is our effectiveness as a Chamber. It is very difficult if we are—in the best sense—an amateur House to have to consider three days in Committee on the trot. That will make the passage of legislation easier and more rapid. In view of the standard of legislation, I am not sure that I am in favour of that under governments of either complexion.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I am a comparatively new Member of this House and perhaps my memory is not as good as it might be. But is it the case that every Wednesday for the whole of the Session will be reserved for Private Members; is it the case that after Easter or at around mid-Whitsun there will be a four-day government week anyway?
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I see that the noble Lord is very sensible. As an experienced politician he never asks questions to which he does not know the answer. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that traditionally in this House in order to fulfil the imperative that the Queen's Government must be carried on and that the Government should get their business, Wednesdays are handed over to the Government. That does not mean to say that because traditionally this House has done it towards the end of term, it should extend that habit to the beginning of term as well.
I have a final point. It is not a party political point because I believe it was true of the government of which I was a member as much as it is true today. We would be unwise, as proper parliamentarians, ever to trust a government. Governments are by their nature amoral. As such, the only way that they can be kept up to the mark is by parliamentary scrutiny and control of legislation in your Lordships' House. Like my noble friend Lord Denham, I suggest that this proposal would be a small and significant step towards increasing the control by the Government of the passage of legislation through your Lordships' House. In that respect it would be thoroughly undesirable.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount would have said precisely that about his own government when he was sitting on this side of the House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord has been a Cabinet Minister. He knows of the constraints. I hope that he will take it from me that I said so many times in private.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount did so in private. I understand that perfectly well.
I was rather surprised at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I was pleased to hear him say that he was not speaking for the Liberal Democrat Party. If he had been, I would have been even more surprised

143
by his remarks. We are talking about a small experiment. I should have thought that if anyone is in favour of a small experiment, it would have been someone in favour of some kind of radical change. Apparently, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is not in favour of such change.
I find the grounds for the opposition to this proposal very interesting. For many of your Lordships, now as before, this House remains a part-time House. I understand that perfectly well. There are many of your Lordships who rightly and understandably need to earn some money outside. We do not receive a salary here. I declare an interest—I earn a bit myself! The policy of the House should not be decided by those Members who wish to be part-time Members; I think it was said in the other context, the other way. The plain fact is that our policy on sitting times should be decided by those who wish to attend. As has been said, those who want to attend a major debate on a Wednesday will do so on a Thursday.
I do not understand why, if we decided to make the switch to the Thursday, we could not have Committee stages on that day. Another place takes Committee stages upstairs. Why can we not do something like that here? I have always been very surprised that the Committee stages of all Bills have to be on the Floor of the House as well as Report and Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, referred to the fact that on Thursdays and Fridays the other place is empty. If one looks at a television screen, one sees that it is empty all the time— on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays as well. To suggest that this House should switch, as an experiment, from now until probably the beginning of April when Parliament will be dissolved for an election—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I did not say it was going to happen; I said "probably". I have no idea when the election is going to be. All I know is that I am not standing; neither am I voting, for that matter. Peers and lunatics do not have a vote at general elections.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if Parliament is to be dissolved on 1st April, surely what will happen, as has happened at every dissolution in my memory, is that the Government will know in advance when they will call an election and the Private Members' days will stop. Therefore, the experiment which starts on 1st February is very unlikely to last more than a month—five weeks at the most, four weeks possibly. There will have been four "Wednesday" debates. That is not a long enough period in which to conduct an experiment.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in that case, we can have another experiment when we return. Why not? No one
144
is suggesting anything more than an experiment at the moment. We are not being asked to do this permanently.
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, it is being suggested that we continue the experiment until the end of this Parliament. If we are to do so, that will need another report from the Procedure Committee and another Motion to be passed by this House.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, what is wrong with that? Why should we not have debates? I love debating with the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I disagree with him most of the time. The plain fact is that we are now talking about an experiment and nothing more. It is astonishing to say that we should not have even the thought of a radical change—and how radical? Would not those who wish to speak in a debate on a Wednesday stay for it on a Thursday? It is astonishing that any one can suggest that such a change of such a modest nature should now be stopped because a few Members might find it difficult. I hope that we shall persist and switch debate days from Wednesdays to Thursdays.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, because I am drawn to my feet by his final remark that this experiment should not be denied the House on the whim that it is inconvenient for a few people. Convenience is the argument of those who want the experiment. Those who do not want the experiment are voluntarily submitting themselves to an inconvenience just as great as those who do want the experiment if it does not take place. The argument is that we are trying under difficult circumstances, as Parliament sees its power visibly leaching away from it year after year, to maintain a Chamber which can be effective in the scrutiny of legislation. And—because there is time to earn money elsewhere, as I do in order to maintain myself in the manner to which I have become accustomed; indeed, as many of us wish to do—we wish to be able both to scrutinise legislation and to earn a living.
We come to the question of the effect of the proposal on the Committee work of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, suggests that the work should be done outside this Chamber. He asked why that could not be done. I shall tell him why. This House is unique in that every Member has an equal voice in every sort of business. The Government are exposed to the expertise of every sort that is in the possession of this House. If one divided this House and had it functioning in two different ways in areas which are both important, one would diminish that element of scrutiny. At present, such off-the-Floor scrutiny is done—from my point of view, reluctantly—in the Moses Room, but in such a way that nothing controversial can be agreed there. That is an essential part of the functioning of this House. Therefore, that is not a reason for having the experiment. It is a reason against it.

145
The next reason against the experiment also relates to Committee work and has been voiced already by two or three speakers. I refer to the danger that the result will be a succession of consecutive days in Committee. Most of your Lordships have experienced this in opposition and have had to cope with the flood of work. The noble Lord the Chief Whip shakes his head, but most noble Lords have experienced this in opposition. If they are on the Government side, and if they are lucky and are trusted by the Government to say only what the Government want, they are fed the material with which to make their speeches.
Those noble Lords who do not have that privilege have to get the information for themselves and devise their speeches for themselves. They have to read the Marshalled List for themselves, see how every amendment fits in, guess at what the motive of an amendment is and guess at what the consequences will be. For two days in sequence, that is difficult. If there is a third clay, noble Lords will put down amendments on the first day; and not only will one have to cope with the second day's debate but one will have to prepare for the third day's debate as well. Unlike a great many noble Lords, I have had that experience as a Minister. It is hell for the Minister. I say that and I hope that it is read by the Chief Whip's colleagues. It is a difficult thing to do and it is exceedingly hard work for the civil servants who brief Ministers. They often have to work into the weekend as a result. All of that adds to the tendency towards thoroughly badly prepared legislation and increases the importance of effective scrutiny. That will not happen if this proposal is introduced.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I shall be brief. I begin by apologising to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for having anticipated the end of his remarks. I am not sure that I want to be characterised as a Labour Back-Bencher with very little to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, suggested might be the case as regards some of us here; and I am not against an experiment. But I am very doubtful whether this is the right way for the House to go.
I have not been a Member of the House for very long but I have gained a little experience. One of the great dangers we face is that we have not learnt the lesson of the past few years. Your Lordships' House has far too little time in which to complete its work. When I say "work", I do not just mean delivering the Government's business; I also mean all the other work which the House of Lords must do for it to be an effective revising Chamber. I therefore worry about that.
There are currently no fewer than nine Select Committee reports waiting to be debated. I do not know when time will be found for them. If we are to have this experiment, one of the results I fear, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, is that attendance will inevitably tail off during the latter part of the week. Many noble Lords have referred to what might happen on a Thursday. God forbid what might
146
happen if we were to debate a European Union Select Committee report on a Friday. It is pointless to have such reports debated only by those who prepared the reports. The reports are far too important for that to happen.
While I am not against an experiment—I believe that in the end experiments can and very often do throw up the right answer—I have grave doubts about the suggestion. I do not want to see a House that gives the appearance of being only a three-day-a-week House. That is not right for a revising Chamber. Our responsibilities are far too heavy to go down that route. I therefore issue a strong word of caution on this proposal.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rather on the same grounds as those put forward by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. The Government find, as all governments find, Parliament an inconvenience. But that is the function of Parliament. If it were not an inconvenience, it would be nothing. We have already seen introduced measures to reduce that inconvenience. My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to Prime Minister's Questions. There is another much more relevant example. It is again a limited experiment down the corridor. From the beginning of this Session, on an experimental basis, without all-party agreement, it has been decided that all votes, other than those on legislation, which would otherwise happen after 10 o'clock at night should be held as deferred Divisions after 3.30 p.m. on the Wednesday.
That is the antithesis of the role and functions of the House of Commons. Indeed, I wonder why, while they are about it, the Government did not seek to change the rules so that at the beginning of a Parliament each Labour MP could cast a proxy in favour of the Government Chief Whip to enable all votes to be cast on the Government's behalf. After all, such a measure could be claimed to be rooted in the Labour tradition of the trade union block vote, which was so convenient for so many years at Labour Party conferences. Actually, I think that it would be rather unwise because the time may come when the Labour Party is in opposition—just as it may come when the Liberal Democrats are in government! But I get the feeling that the Government would like their Chief Whip, in the Commons at any rate, to behave like a ring-master in a circus. They certainly seem to have reduced the Commons from being a lion to a pussy cat. But your Lordships' House is not a pussy cat and it must from time to time roar and bite. We have to be extremely vigilant when we see all these so-called convenience measures.
It is not long ago since I took some part in blocking a proposal from the Procedure Committee that any Written Answer in Hansard of more than two pages should not be printed at all. Luckily, with support from all sides of the House, we saw that one off. I

147
strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and I shall happily vote for his amendment if he calls a Division.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, speaking as an hereditary Peer, I have always felt it my duty to be here and to be of such service as I can. Speaking as an elected Cross-Bench hereditary Peer, to that duty is added the honour and the gratitude which I owe to my fellow Cross-Bench Peers. As a Peer who lives in Scotland, I would certainly find it very convenient to have a three-day week. But I am alive, and because I am alive I am aware that things change all the time. I am not against change as such, but in this case I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I do not think that just a short time before a general election—everyone seems to have a different idea as to when it will be—is the right time to make a drastic change. We should think about it and perhaps try later.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene as a Labour Back-Bencher with very little to do. That is one of the reasons that I am sitting here listening to this preposterous debate. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Barnett. The most preposterous part of the debate is the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whom I have known and admired for an enormous number of years, should have adopted this extraordinarily reactionary position. Before the debate I wondered who would make the most reactionary speech. I am looking around at several noble Lords. They spent 18 years in power unable even remotely to reform this House in any way and they are still at it. I am really sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has got himself mixed up with such people.
On the actual subject of the debate, I am astonished to learn that the future of the House depends on whether we have sixth-form debates on a Wednesday or a Thursday. What an astonishing view! I take part in those debates. I am taking part in one tomorrow—the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am looking forward to it very much. But the notion that these debates are portentous and have major effects on the nation is staggering. I have spoken many times in such debates. I did not think that anyone was listening. I do not accept the idea that such debates affect something "out there". I would probably have spoken more carefully if I had realised that anyone was listening.
What puzzles me even more is this. What is wrong with the personal convenience of your Lordships? What is wrong with an easier working week? When did it suddenly become a crime or a sin? And what is wrong with having fewer days? Many of us who have been here for many years would have put our hands up for fewer days at all times.
148
I find the arguments almost impossible to follow. As my noble friend Lord Barnett said, we are a part-time House—all of us, even those of us who are retired
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall be very brief.
Could the noble Lord address his mind to the fundamental argument about the Back-Bench day, the Wednesday, which we share with the Cross Benches, on which none of the Back-Benchers on this side of the House has been consulted, so that it is only today that we can express our opinion?
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord is expressing his opinion, but he does not realise how cynical I am. If the Back-Bench day had been a Thursday, my view is that all the noble Lords opposite would be arguing for a Wednesday, if that were being put forward. What they do not like is any change whatsoever. They automatically say "No". That is what the Procedure Committee does. This is our first attempt to try to do something sensible.
I have two other remarks. If the House is unable to find time—and I think even my noble friend Lord Grenfell was worried about how much we are able to do other things—why not abolish the Wednesday debates altogether? That would give us much more time, but no one is suggesting that and I do not think it would stand up at all.
My last remark is on the suggestion, which takes me back to my role as a Back-Bencher, of the legislative sausage machine. The present Government, despite their massive majority and their great victory in the country, have not attempted to obtain, and still have no intention of doing so, a majority in this House. We on this side have operated throughout this Parliament in a considerable minority compared with noble Lords opposite. Anybody who has sat here these years and can describe what has been going on as a legislative sausage machine cannot possibly have any experience of this place. I remember when we had a legislative sausage machine; it was all the time I sat on the Front Bench. We could not win a single vote without an ambush. We all found the idea of ambushes most distasteful, but it was the only way. If there is a legislative sausage machine, it is certainly not something that this side has ever put forward or in my judgment ever will put forward.
I look forward to the speech of my noble friend in reply, but I think that we should divide and test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I feel sorry for the poor, unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for being subjected to such castigation by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who said that he could not understand why on earth the noble Lord should do this, that he is always against change and so on.
Oddly enough, the Government seem to want to change everything, whether it is good or bad, other than the parliamentary draftsman. I once put down an

149
amendment suggesting that "a" should be replaced by "an" and all hell was let loose. I was told, "You can't possibly do that. This has been done for centuries and it must continue to be done in that way". Therefore, the idea that the Government are in favour of change goes only a certain distance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for saying that it was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who pointed this matter out to him. I am also grateful to the noble Lord because he pointed it out to me. When one sees the report from the Procedure Committee it all looks perfectly harmless, until one begins to read it. I had the privilege of being a member of the Procedure Committee, and I remember this great argument. On the whole, those who did not want the change tended to outweigh those who did, and then the report indicated nothing. It was decided that the committee should report the fact that there was a division of opinion and that therefore the matter should be considered by the House as a whole.
Musical bumps operate in all these matters, and I was shoved off the Procedure Committee. I was quite happy about that, but I did not know what happened thereafter, except that by chance I met the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She will not think that I am giving away any government secrets when I report that she happened to say to me in the Prince's Chamber, "Well we managed all right in the Procedure Committee without you". I thought that that was charming; I was not certain whether it was a compliment or the reverse. It was only later that I discovered that the committee had decided to try to get the matter through your Lordships so that we should make the change.
I do not think, in a nice avant-garde way, that we should make this change. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, "It's only a small change; it's just a little experiment". Well, the housemaid with her baby said that it was only a small baby, and tried to get away with it like that. The noble Lord says that it is only for an experimental period, but the 70 mph speed limit became permanent; it was never simply an experiment.
The point is that if the Wednesday debate, the general debate, is moved to a Thursday an awful lot of people who are not interested in hospitals in the South East, for instance, will not come on Thursday, and there will be a dead House. If there is Government business on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, the Wednesday business is usually well attended. One of the privileges of this House is that people listen as well as speak. But if one is made a life Peer and is told, "You're a working Peer", how does one work? The answer is that it is by making speeches, and when one makes a speech one prolongs the debate for everyone else. That can be quite disagreeable. Therefore, I think that it would be bad to change the day from Wednesday to Thursday, because it would mean that Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday would all be occupied with government business, and those who are not interested in Thursday would buzz off.
150
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, says, "That's quite a good thing, because some of us live a long way from here and we didn't realise that we would have to stay here till Friday". All I can say about that is that he should find out the temperature in the kitchen before he enters it. If he does not like the prospect, he ought not to come here. To suggest that if one comes here one should then curtail the hours of debate for reasons of one's own convenience is a bad thing.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, my point was that some people might indeed find out what the heat in the kitchen was and decide not to come to this House, although they would have valuable experience representing the rest of this country—and not London—to bring to us. That is exactly the problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fully realise that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for re-emphasising such an elementary principle. However, the fact is that if people say, "If we had realised that we would have to stay up that long we would have denied Parliament the benefit of our views", that is a pretty selfish attitude. However, we shall not go down that path.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that if there is government business on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, it is very difficult for the Ministers concerned. There may be only a single Minister involved. When I was at the Home Office we had six Bills to get through, and one Minister might be in charge of two of them running concurrently. Therefore, if one is involved with Bills on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday it is hard for the Minister and the civil servants. I cannot see that it is necessary at all.
I would add in parenthesis that I was surprised that my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip apparently said that he agreed with the proposal. I have great respect for my noble friend and for my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I really think that between them they may have had a momentary lapse, because normally their senses are very comprehensive and lapses do not often occur. If my noble friend agrees that it is right to move the debate day from a Wednesday to a Thursday, I regard that as a considerable lapse of senses. I am sure that after hearing the debate my noble friend will realise the folly of his ways and alter his speech so that he does not indicate that the Opposition Front Bench is in agreement.
I really believe that we would be making a mistake if we accepted this change. It would alter the character of the House, and many people who at present attend on Wednesdays would not bother to attend on Thursdays.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I have listened very carefully to the arguments, many of which were rehearsed in the debate two years ago. Not very much has changed. I do not wish to denigrate for a moment the value of the current Wednesday debates. Someone said that they are a valuable part of our procedures, and they are. They are listened to with attention by people outside the House. But I wonder whether there

151
are many who share my experience of waiting Wednesday after Wednesday at five o'clock, six o'clock or seven o'clock for an eight o'clock cut-off to a five-hour debate, and finding that the only people in the Chamber are those who have spoken, are waiting to speak, or are waiting for the wind-ups.
The idea that because Wednesday is the debate day the House is packed is a nonsense. I do not know why some noble Lords do not accept the fact that, although the Wednesday debates are very important, they are not the be-all and end-all of what the House is about. Of course major matters are debated and, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, pointed out, changes may have taken place as a result of those debates. As to the argument about Thursday and people going home, many Members of the House look upon Wednesday as a day when they can have a day off. They will arrive at 2.30 p.m., stay until perhaps 3.30 p.m., and then disappear because they have no reason to stay.
Perhaps I may now consider what the change would mean if we had a third legislative day on a Wednesday. It would mean three legislative days on the trot, but we would not be concerned with the same Bill. I would be astounded if the business managers allowed the same Bill to be dealt with on three successive days.
4 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. When we were taking the Food Standards Bill through the House, the Committee stage was held in the Moses Room—which was not the best of places for it to be held—and we considered that same Bill for three days on the run. I can assure the noble Lord that doing the preparation, coping with the Bill and trying to table amendments was very hard work. It was a real problem. That happened less than two years ago. Not a lot of people came into the Moses Room to support the Bill. It was extremely difficult to do the Bill justice and ensure that the correct legislation was passed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes my point. I am referring to the Floor of the House; not the Moses Room. I would be appalled if the business managers placed upon Members an obligation to be here to support their party's point of view on three successive days on the same Bill. The noble Baroness referred to the Moses Room. That is a practice which has grown up and which has been accepted by the House.
I reinforce the view that this is no big deal. People are elevating the issue to a matter of major principle. In my view, it is not. Over the past two or three years, changes have been introduced which, although not major matters, assumed an importance among Members opposite far beyond anything I ever dreamt of. Noble Lords will remember when the House debated the issue of changing the introduction procedure. That was seen as something awful; the procedure should not be altered. When the question was asked of how long the procedure had been in existence, we were told "1621". I do not mean twenty-one minutes past four. The existing procedure was agreed in 1621.
152
We then had the business of the Lord Chancellor's breeches. We were told that any change would shake the foundations of the nation. We had to brace ourselves, but we changed his breeches. Now the noble and learned Lord is able to dress otherwise.
I simply say to my colleagues that they are making a mountain of a molehill. I accept the point that the timing may not be of the best. The timescale is awkward, but there never will be a right time for those on the other side of the argument. This may not be the ideal time, but it is an opportunity for us to examine the issue.
When people argue that the proposal is for the convenience of the Government, I say to both parties opposite, "Oh ye of little faith". Do you not foresee the prospect that one day you, too, may form a government, and that any benefit which may accrue to the Government now may one day accrue to your good selves?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is something that we have very much in mind. We do not trust them any more than we trust the Government.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord should remember his silences on that point when he was a government Minister. It is funny how things change when one crosses the Chamber.
I believe that there may be some advantage to some Members who are currently inconvenienced. I live in Loughton in Essex. I am a four-day man. I dislike coming here on a Friday, but I am prepared to work and to do what is needed to keep the House going for four days in the week. I love to get away as soon as I can, but if my party asks me to stay later on a Thursday, I will. It may be that the change would be to my advantage; I might get home to Loughton a little earlier.
My noble friend Lord Peston made a valuable point. What is wrong with Members of the House thinking of their own convenience? The nature of the House and its procedures are changing. This is one small step. The proposal may or may not be accepted, but I shall certainly oppose the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, if he presses his amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I consider myself a quintessential Back-Bencher. I have never sat on the Front Bench; I never will. When I came into this House, I was proud to be brought into it. In my day, when our party was in power, I sat through until one o'clock in the morning many a time; it had to be done. I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, if he thinks that people will not come because it will be inconvenient. The people we need in the House—and the people who, thank goodness, are normally appointed—are those who have something to say and something to offer. They are prepared to accept the heat of the kitchen in order to say it. I do not believe that we will lose good people simply because the hours are demanding from time to time.

153
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said about Select Committees. They are unique and produce remarkable reports. It would be a disaster if, as a result of this arrangement, we found ourselves having the debates on Select Committee reports on a Friday with no one to listen to them.
Like it or not, the most important thing is that we are all here because it is a privilege and an honour. It is something that is worth doing and worth suffering a bit for. That is all I have to say.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as my name has been mentioned, it may be appropriate if I say a word or two from these Benches—or, rather, from this Front Bench, as I sense that not all my colleagues on the Benches behind me are in total agreement with what I shall have to say.
It may be convenient if the Government Chief Whip follows me and the House then comes to an agreement on this matter. It is a very important decision for this House—this is not a minor issue—and it is a decision for the House itself to take. For that reason, the Government Chief Whip, myself and others thought it right that the matter should go through the Procedure Committee and that the House should discuss it. I therefore do not think it is necessary for me to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for being in agreement with the Government Chief Whip on this occasion.
There are occasions when the Opposition Chief Whip, the Government Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrats' Chief Whip are in agreement—this is called "the usual channels"—and it is on that basis that the House operates. I understand that a great many Back-Benchers view with suspicion anything which seems to have the support of the two Front Benches. I can think of a number of Bills which, in the past, had the support of both Front Benches. They were universally wrong and bad. I shall not give examples at this stage.
As I said, I supported these propositions when they went before the Procedure Committee; I shall support them today. However, I should make it clear that on this side of the House—I trust the same is true on the Benches opposite and throughout the House—this is a matter for a free vote. It is a matter for the House itself to decide, not the Procedure Committee.
I would not want to recommend anything to my colleagues on the Benches behind me that would in any way diminish the standing of this House, nor would I recommend anything—and I speak as someone who has been in government and who is now in opposition—which would make it easier for the executive of the day to override this House and what the House wanted to do.
I suspect that in some areas the Government, regrettably, have some ambitions as regards procedure. They do not want a stronger House. We suspect that the Opposition want a weaker House—
A noble Lord: The Government!
Lord Henley: My Lords, even Homer nods! We suspect that the Government want a weaker House.
154
We shall resist any changes put forward by the Government that are designed to weaken the House. We shall resist, for example, any suggestion that there should be checks on our right to vote in Committee, and any restrictions beyond those that are presently in place on what we can do at Third Reading. We should certainly recoil from suggestions, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, that we should have deferred votes as happens in another place which separate decision-making from the debate itself. Certainly, with reference to an article in today's Guardian, we should resist any attempt by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to suggest that the House should sit from nine to five Monday to Friday. We should certainly resist any suggestion—I refer to an article in The Times on 18th January—that ageing Peers should be bought off! The article did not specify at what age they should be bought off, or how much they are likely to get. That will no doubt be a matter for discussion. I do not know whether it will go before the Procedure Committee in due course.
Equally, we should not resist any reasonable—I stress the word "reasonable"—cause for change that did not advantage the Government. That is why we have agreed to matters as varied as a change in the dress of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or even the movements of the noble and learned Lord, who is now allowed to sit not only on the Woolsack but also on occasions on the Front Bench at the Report stage of various Bills.
We have not resisted the use of the Moses Room for legislation. During this Session, we have already agreed with the Government Chief Whip that it should be used for two important and major Bills: the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, and, I understand, the Common and Leasehold Reform Bill.
We believe that, on occasions, changes should be made and experiments should take place. I do not believe that this proposed experiment is part of any sinister plot by the Government to make life easier for them or to erode the powers of the House. I do not believe that such a change would assist the Government that much.
I understand that many colleagues believe that this change will disadvantage the House by detracting from the Wednesday debates—moving them to the Thursday, reducing attendance on those days, and reducing the attention that is given to them. I am not sure that that would be the effect. We have seen, for example, that moving Prime Minister's Question Time to Wednesdays—it used to take place on Tuesdays and Thursdays—takes away from the coverage that we receive for debates that take place in this House on Wednesdays. It may be that moving our debates to Thursdays would increase that coverage. However brief such an experiment might be—we might hear from the Government Chief Whip as to how long the experiment might last, because he may be able to assist us as to when the election might take place—it is certainly worth having.

155
I am grateful for the statement by the Government in the Procedure Committee that, as part of this experiment, they will give time for more general debates on major topics on Tuesdays, and possibly occasionally on Mondays or Wednesdays. That would be a matter for the House to decide. However, I should like a categorical assurance and undertaking from the Government that that will be the case. I should like an assurance also that, if this experiment is to take place, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays there will be no occasion, either in this Chamber or in the Moses Room, when the Government insist on the same Bill being taken on all three days.
A further point was taken up by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He referred to an occasion when he was Home Office Minister and the Home Office introduced six Bills; and I understand that last year the Home Office had something like nine Bills. If, for example, the Home Office has that number of Bills every year, we do not want to see Home Office Bills scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. It might be easy for the government spokesmen, with all the support behind them, but it is certainly not easy for those on the Back Benches and the Opposition Benches who take an interest in these matters. Therefore, I hope that we can have an assurance from the Government on both those matters.
I return to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. This is an important matter. It is one to which all Members of this House should give serious thought. It is not a minor change, but it is merely an experiment. I hope that all will recognise that it is a matter for the House. I hope that any pressure that has come from the Whips—certainly there has been none on this side of the House—will be resisted by all the independent Back-Benchers on all sides of the House.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he be kind enough to clarify one point? I understood him to say that the Wednesday debates would take place on the Thursday, but did he say that there might also be other debates on Mondays and Tuesdays? If so, what is the point of the change? A great deal of the time that would have been used for Committee stages would have gone.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the reason I have asked for a proper undertaking from the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is that there will be a general change from Wednesdays to Thursdays, but on other occasions during the year the Government will allow debates, particularly on Select Committee reports—something that this House does very well—or on White Papers, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday; that is, on days that are generally thought to be left for government business.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his
156
support. I assure your Lordships that, so far as our Benches are concerned, this is a free vote. It is a House matter.
Perhaps I may deal with a point made by a number of noble Lords which, frankly, completely baffles me. I refer to the suggestion that this will somehow change the timetable of legislation. There will be three days a week for legislation from Queen's Speech until June; then there will be four days a week. The three days will be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, if the House accepts the change; and there will be Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, as is the case now. So there is no change in the number of days that will be available for legislation. One day will change: the Wednesday debate will take place on Thursday, and we shall have Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday for legislation. The number of days in the Session available for legislation will remain exactly the same.
Lord Elton: My Lords, because the days for government business will be consecutive, the noble Lord will be faced with the awful temptation, when he needs to get an item of business through in a particular week, to give it three days rather than two in Committee.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I said in the Procedure Committee that I should not seek to have three consecutive days on legislation. I would point out that not once during the course of this Parliament has that happened. I have been responsible for three over-spills, in 1998, 1999 and 2000, when the House dealt with legislation for four days a week. Not once in that period were there three days on the same Bill. I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, regarding the Food Standards Bill being taken in the Moses Room. It was a special case agreed with the Opposition. Frankly, it was a part of the Weatherill arrangement to get the Food Standards Bill through in the over-spill. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Surely one of the problems is that if the Government have a great weight of legislation to get through, obviously there is greater pressure to get more of the business through—if not in this Chamber, in the Moses Room. That never happened before. I raise the example because it was less than two years ago that that Bill went through.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on occasions there have been three consecutive days of debate on Bills in the Moses Room; but the procedure is different, the day is shorter and the weight is less. I give an absolute undertaking that there will be no attempt to arrange three consecutive days on a particular piece of legislation in the Chamber. The number of Bills means that there is no need to have three consecutive days on the same Bill. I certainly take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about the load on Ministers.
I am always frank with the House. This move is of no particular benefit to the government of the day, Labour or Conservative. It is not to their advantage. It

157
would actually make the management of business slightly harder. I am prepared to live with that if it is for the convenience of the House and the Back-Benchers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that all governments are amoral. I suppose that, as a member of the Cecil family, he is better qualified to make that observation than the rest of us!
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is just wrong in regard to what may happen when the House is prorogued. As I understand it, the Prime Minister goes to the Palace and asks the Queen's permission to dissolve Parliament, an announcement is made, and there are a few days left—just a week or so, which I believe is called a "wash up" period—in which there is a tidying up of the legislation when we might lose one such day. If, hypothetically, an election takes place perhaps on 3rd May—and I have no more knowledge than anybody else about whether that will happen—this experiment would last for eight or nine Wednesdays. That is a reasonable number of days in which to experiment until the end of this Session. The matter will have to come back to the House to be renewed. If it does not work, the House will quickly make its views known. Only one day would be lost in the event of an election being called. In fact, as Chief Whip, I am planning a full Session lasting until October.
With regard to the point about three consecutive days being spent on a Bill, I was on the Front Bench for over 10 years in opposition and have now been in government for over four years. While I was the spokesman on agriculture and on health and social security, I cannot remember a single occasion on which I was ever required to spend three days together on the same Bill.
An important point was made by my noble friend Lord Grenfell. I am pleased to repeat the undertaking that I gave in the Procedure Committee that I would occasionally attempt to find a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday for general debate. We always used to do that. It was not possible in the last Session. I can tell the House that we are already looking for such a day in February.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made an extraordinary point about deferred Divisions in the House of Commons. That has nothing to do with this debate. I think that the chance of that being agreed to by this House is very slim. However, I have some good news for the noble Lord. He referred to the business of proxies. I can tell him that the ancient habit of proxies it was decided should not be revived in the House of Lords on 13th March 1868—yet another experiment. Of course, in the timescale of some of your Lordships, it is perhaps a little too early to say!
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Lord had no idea that I was going to make the point about proxies.
158
I wonder whether it is significant that the noble Lord has been looking up the history of proxies and the possibility of using them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure whether it came in the form of a table. I was handed the Standing Orders, of which I was not aware, relating to the revival of proxies.
I know that your Lordships feel strongly about the proposal. It is quite a small and simple change. It is not the apocalyptic change that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, suggested. I believe that we should try the experiment for perhaps eight or nine Wednesdays to see how it goes. If noble Lords feel that the debates are important, they will be here on Thursdays just as they are on Wednesdays. If noble Lords are concerned about an empty House, I suggest that they come in at about 7 o'clock on a Wednesday evening when there is not a very attractive subject for debate and see how many Peers are here to listen. It is the quality of the subject that attracts your Lordships to speak in debates, and I am sure that that will happen on Thursdays.
The measure is intended for the convenience of the House. The House will tell us whether this is what it wants. I support it. The only way to find out for sure is to put it to the vote. I suggest that we do so, without further ado.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord's speech. He has not said what are the advantages of the change or the purpose of it. Will he explain that?
Lord Carter: The advantage to my colleagues on these Benches is that it would be more convenient for Back-Benchers—not for the Government—to have the three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for legislation. If noble Lords are not interested in debates on Wednesdays, they do not attend, but they have to be available until Thursday in case legislation is to be dealt with on that day. There are Members of this House who live some way from London. I believe that they would find it more convenient to have that change.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, this raises a question which has already been put twice from the Government Back Benches. What is wrong with Back-Benchers and Members of the House of Lords looking after their own interests? My Lords, everything is wrong. What we should be looking at are the interests of this House and the prestige and position of this House as a revising Chamber. There is already a great deal of ignorance about the way in which this House works, assisted by some rubbish recently in the press about the performance of Cross-Benchers. Before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to make the point that there is everything wrong about doing something in this House for the convenience of its Members and

159
everything wrong about anything that militates against the proper function of this House as a revising Chamber.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I fail to understand that. If this change is accepted, noble Lords will be engaged here for three days a week on legislation, for one day a week if they are interested in the subjects of the debates, and on Fridays if the House is sitting, which is unlikely to happen for some time yet. There will be no change to the present position, but it would be convenient for Members living in the North. They will still be doing the same amount of work. They will still be here on Thursdays if they wish to speak in debates. I believe that it is a more convenient arrangement of the week. It is as simple as that.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and views have been very fairly expressed on both sides of this important argument. I now find myself almost grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Henley, for giving us this opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, as always, gave a very reasonable explanation of why the matter is before the House. In summary, it seems to me that the case is a very simple one. We can adopt a course which would, I accept, result in greater convenience for many Members of the House. Alternatively, we can prevent any possibility of the influence of this Chamber and of Parliament itself being eroded through having a less active and well attended Chamber than has been the case. My Lords, I take the view that my amendment will enable the House to maintain its influence within our parliamentary system and its influence upon government. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the original Question was that the First Report from the Procedure Committee be agreed to, since when an amendment has been moved at the end to insert the words "except for item 1". The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment to the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Biffen, L.

Addington, L.

Boardman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bowness, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bramall, L.

Avebury, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Brightman, L.

Barker, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

160

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chadlington, L.

Monson, L.

Chalfont, L.

Montrose, D.

Clement-Jones, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Cockfield, L.

Noakes, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northbourne, L.

Coe, L.

Northover, B.

Courtown, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Cuckney, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dahrendorf, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Patten, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dholakia, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elton, L.

Plumb, L.

Ezra, L.

Prior, L.

Falkland, V.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Redesdale, L.

Flowers, L.

Rees, L.

Fookes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goschen, V.

Roper, L.

Greenway, L.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Haslam, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hogg, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hooson, L.

Strange, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Taverne, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tope, L.

Jopling, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kimball, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vivian, L.

Listowel, E.

Waddington, L.

Liverpool, E.

Walmsley, B.

Lucas, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Luke, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Lyell, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Maddock, B.

Winston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli, L.

Colwyn, L.

Amos, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Andrews, B.

Crawley, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

David, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Barnett, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dixon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L. [Teller]

Blease, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bragg, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Burlison, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Burns, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

161

Filkin, L.

Molloy, L.

Flather, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Orme, L.

Gilbert, L.

Parekh, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Paul, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grabiner, L.

Puttnam, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rea, L.

Greengross, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hanham, B.

Richard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rix, L.

Haskel, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Henley, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sawyer, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Simon, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Smith of Leigh, L.

Stallard, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Tenby, V.

Lockwood, B.

Thornton, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Longford, E.

Turnberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Uddin, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Mallalieu, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Marsh, L.

Waverley, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whitaker, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Wilcox, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mitchell, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and the amendment to the Motion agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion as amended, agreed to.

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): 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.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power by order to make provision reforming law which imposes burdens]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("affecting") and insert ("upon").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 2, perhaps I may, first, read out to the Committee the beginning of subsection (1) of the clause, which states:
"a Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the purpose of reforming legislation which has the effect of imposing burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of any activity, with a view to one or more of the following objects",
and so on. We are all "affected", but it is not the effect upon me that should be any part of the threshold test for the use of this power. It is not about those of us who are indirectly affected by this Bill: it is, or at least it should be, about those of us who will be directly affected. It is those who will be directly affected by the burden of compliance who should be the focus of this Bill and it is their interests which should be paramount in our debate.
This amendment will give this clause that focus without inhibiting in any way the use of the power, and it will serve as a guide to those who will be tasked with what all are agreed is a worthwhile aim: the process of reforming our regulatory system; that is, to deregulate.
The power granted by this Bill should extend only so far as is necessary to achieve what all are agreed is a desirable object. It should apply only to cases in which a burden lies directly "upon" he who has to bear it. To apply the power to cases in which persons are "affected" is to grant a power of almost limitless scope. We are all affected, directly or indirectly, by most forms of regulation.
This clause needs to be more tightly drawn than that if it is to provide an effective threshold test for the use of subordinated legislative powers. There are constitutional implications in extending the power granted by this Bill to cover an almost limitless area, and clear dangers in allowing subordinate legislation to fulfil a primary role. It is for the purpose of providing the beginnings of an effective system of safeguards that I propose this amendment.
In turning to Amendment No. 2, I return to the matter that has already been raised with regard to the extent and scope of the power granted by the Bill and the attendant need for proper safeguards in the threshold test to be applied before that power may be used.
This part of this clause seeks to define what shall be the required intention of the legislature in order for a proposal to fall within the order-making power. To say that subordinate legislation should be being advanced "with a view to" achieving a particular object is to make the power, in our view, too wide. Amost all legislation can be said to be being advanced "with a view to" achieving any number of objects, some more important or more immediate than others.
The existence of numerous objectives may provide any number of good reasons why legislation should be advanced, but the existence of one particular object

163
among many is not an appropriate threshold test for the exercise of the particular legislative power contained in this Bill. If used for that purpose, it is altogether lacking in rigour.
This clause as presently framed would grant power to permit the making of an order which has as only one of its aims the achievement of one of the objectives stated in Clause 1. Furthermore, that aim need not even be central to the aim of the Bill; it may be a wholly peripheral or entirely accidental one. That makes the power, as presently defined, too wide.
The order-making power in this clause should be limited to that legislation which has as its "sole" (or possibly "primary") purpose the achievement of that which this Bill is intended to provide: "regulatory reform". If it does not, not only is it not fulfilling the purpose we all intend, but it is open to abuse.
It may be suggested that the use of the power in this Bill should be available as a means of annexing regulatory reform to other new legislation. That may be a desirable objective: it will save parliamentary time. But it is no reason for seeking to procure what ought otherwise to be primary legislation by secondary means.
This amendment is a further safeguard upon the use of the power granted by this Bill. It is a safeguard which does not inhibit a proper use of the power, and so is inoffensive. Indeed, I would suggest that it encourages the proper use of the power and therefore ought to be thought desirable. It is an amendment of which, if unacceptable to the Government, one is bound to ask the question, "Why?" I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: I support my noble friend's amendments, which go some way towards tightening the drafting of the opening clause. The Minister has come to Parliament asking for very broad powers—unprecedentedly broad powers—and against that he has put forward arguments that will be used only in very tightly controlled circumstances.
I have to agree with my noble friend because the drafting of the Bill in no way reflects that. The phrase "with a view to" is so broadly framed that one could not think of it being any broader. Of course it would be perfectly possible to prove that one did something "with a view to" achieving a certain outcome. This clause does need strengthening, and my noble friend's suggested wording does exactly that. I think that we shall come back to this issue time and time again as we go through the Marshalled List of amendments, all of which seek to tie not only the Minister but his successors in a type of instance when these powers, which effectively bypass the standard parliamentary procedures, can be used. I support my noble friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is the first in a series of amendments, all, in my respectful opinion, wholly requisite to curtail the width of the powers conferred
164
here. For the reasons given, I wholly support this amendment, for a start. It is not by any means the main one.
Lord Goodhart: I should like to rise briefly to point out that, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has pointed out, this is one of a series of amendments. I think there are six groups covering Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 which are all in one way or another designed to try to limit the powers of a Minister of the Crown.
In those circumstances, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my commenting in any detail on any of these amendments, except of course those which I shall move myself. We all share a common objective here, even though our methods may differ somewhat and some may be less effective than others.
Lord Borrie: With regard to the speeches just made from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches, I feel that these amendments are not the most important ones, but they happen to be in a certain order which I can understand. However, just like other noble Lords, I should like to make one or two general remarks. Mine are entirely different from those made by others Members of the Committee: they are simply to say in relation to this matter and others yet to come that they are seeking to reduce the effectiveness of an extremely valuable Bill.
There are a number of parts of the Bill where I may seek amendment and argue that improvements might be made, as may others. I should like to make a general statement that this is a Bill concerning regulatory reform and it is a far better Bill, and a major improvement on the Act of 1992, if only because it does something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, objected at Second Reading. In other words, it does not just deregulate, it does not just remove restrictions and burdens; it seeks to form a whole scheme of regulation. And when that is done, it is clearly in the public interest that not only should obsolete or bad regulations be got rid of but new regulations should be introduced which will inevitably involve placing burdens on certain people. This is the very "two-street" type of law to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, objected in her Second Reading speech. However, I consider it to be a mark of the way in which this Bill is a major improvement on the other one. Therefore, I suggest that several of the amendments which we are about to discuss in relation to the early clauses of the Bill are, in many cases, undesirable because they seek to undermine the Minister's ability to deal with regulatory reform in a more effective way than has been permissible to date.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is absolutely right: this is not only a deregulation Bill; it is also a regulation Bill. The question is whether Parliament, in its wisdom, should allow totally new burdens for totally new reasons to be legislated upon by statutory instrument. I made it clear on Second Reading that I do not believe that to be the case and I stick by that view.

165
However, we digress somewhat from the two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe that we are now discussing. I certainly agree with her that we should very gently and very pertinently narrow the scope of the beginning of Clause 1(1) of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. A number of amendments which were grouped together address the issue of what the detailed scope of the Bill should be. Quite fairly, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has degrouped them. Inevitably that means that we shall start to consider the amendments piecemeal. A point will come in the debate where we discuss the overall scope. I shall wait for a Member of the Committee to introduce that part of the debate and, at that point, I suspect that we shall sweep in all the amendments. At present, I shall simply address the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The noble Baroness said that the word "affecting" should be changed to the word "upon". Perhaps I may give the three reasons why we do not consider that to be a good idea. First, the effect would be substantially to limit the range of reforms—in particular, deregulatory reforms—which we could introduce under the Bill if it became law.
Secondly, many pieces of legislation impose regulations, for example, on a local authority in relation to implementing environmental matters. In practice, the burden of those regulations will not fall heavily on the local authority; it will fall heavily on a group of people such as farmers. We believe that, rather than focus simply upon on whom the burden is placed by the legislation, one should be able to look wider to see whether or not the burden is such that it should appropriately be removed, reduced or replaced. We could lose that benefit if we were to move from the word "affecting" to the word "upon". I believe that that degree of flexibility is sensible. We have taken the word "affecting" from the 1994 Act. The draftsmen considered the word to be appropriate at that stage and we consider it to be appropriate, too.
My third point is that, if we were to go along with the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, we could lose all the major proposed reforms of regulatory regimes, such as fire safety, weights and measures, reform of public health legislation and reform of the civil registration service. Those matters concern not only the person upon whom the old statute or regulation places the burden but also the people who are affected by it.
I wish to make an additional, fourth point. The limitation that the burdens must be "upon" a person would knock out the use of many of our data-sharing examples. I hope that Members of the Committee have had an opportunity to look at the 51 examples where we believe the Bill would be of value. The limitation would knock out examples such as the one which would enable disabled drivers to renew their vehicle excise duty licence by telephone. In that example, the burden rests on the DVLA and the Benefits Agency in
166
that they are prevented from sharing their data. That is no burden for them, but disabled drivers would be affected. That is why we believe that a wider scope is worth while. As the DVLA and the Benefits Agency are agencies, without the wider words this reform would be ruled out under the tailpiece to Clause 2(1).
We could also lose examples such as the invalid care allowance or the vaccine damage payments. In those cases, again the legal burden is on Ministers. One cannot rely on removing the burden from Ministers because Clause 2(1) prevents that. Therefore, one must rely on the burden on the wider person. Ministers are prevented from making payments to those who do not fall within the current rules. If one wants to change the current rules to help vaccine-damaged children —again, that example appears in the list of 51—one must go wider than simply the person on whom the burden is placed. That is why we chose the word "affecting".
I turn to the second amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which seeks to leave out the words "with a view to" and insert the words "for the sole purpose of achieving". As she said fairly and clearly, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the order cannot stray beyond the four objects laid out in Clause 1. We believe that the clause as it stands already ensures that any reform must deal with the four areas listed. If the purpose of a reform were only peripheral or incidental, plainly it would not comply with the terms of the Bill as presently drafted.
Equally within the corollary of this issue is the consequence of what the noble Baroness's amendment provides. If a reform had a peripheral or incidental purpose other than one of the four listed and, equally, if her amendment were allowed, the reform would not comply. Therefore, that does not seem to me to be either sensible or, in practice, workable.
In the light of what I have said, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and not to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I understand his argument in relation to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I do not say that I totally agree with it, but I understand it. It is a totally different argument to that which will arise in relation to Amendments Nos. 3, 4. 5, 6, 7 and 8. I shall support all those amendments, but I have also tabled my own amendment—Amendment No. 10. After speaking in support of those amendments, I shall probably then deal with my amendment. When I speak in support of, for example, Amendment No. 3, will it be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak in support of Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6, or shall I be limited to Amendment No. 3?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall try to be of assistance. We proposed a group of amendments which would allow the noble Lord to speak to all of them after the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, had moved his Amendment No. 3. On behalf of the

167
Conservative Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that they did not agree to that grouping, and she is entirely within her rights to say so.
Lord Skelmersdale: In responding to these two amendments, the noble and learned Lord mentioned Clause 2 and the words which appear after Clause 2(1)(b)—namely, that the burden,
"does not include any burden which only affects a Minister of the Crown or government department".
I may be jumping the gun, but that seems to me to be quite clear. Part of his defence against my noble friend's amendment was that it would preclude such matters as alterations to the vaccine damages arrangements. If a burden on the Minister of the Crown is excluded by the Bill, I do not understand how that would work.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would work because the statute imposes upon a Minister a duty to carry out, for example, (a), (b), (c) and (d) before something can occur, say, in relation to delivering compensation for vaccine-damaged children. The people whom that burden affects include the vaccine-damaged children. Although one is concerned about the burden on the Minister, one could not rely on that as the basis for regulatory reform under Clause 2(1). However, one could rely on it under Clause 1(1) because the statutory obligation has the effect of imposing burdens "affecting" persons—namely, the people who apply for vaccine-damage compensation.
5 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: The Minister has used the word "burden" in two quite different senses. First, the burden on a Minister is partly a burden of expenditure and partly a burden of having to exercise a power. The other kind of burden to which he refers is, in my submission, rather different and is the consequence of the exercise of that power over a certain range of people. It may or may not be a beneficial exercise, but the use of the word "burden", in that case, has quite a different sense from the burden on a Minister. Does the Minister consider that the legislation should, in its definition section, distinguish those two meanings clearly?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect to the noble Lord, I believe that the matter is perfectly well distinguished. One has to consider the effect of the statutory restriction or the statutory matter that one is considering reforming in terms of burden. If that burden affects only a Minister—Clause 2(1)—it cannot be changed. If the effect goes wider, for example because it affects the applicants for compensation, it can be changed. It is as simple as that.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I may pose a question that may or may not be rhetorical. In that context, what burden could affect only a Minister?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Where there is a duty to do particular things in respect of which other people do not have to respond. The example that I have given of rules in respect of which one has to be satisfied before vaccine damaged children can apply for compensation seems to be an obvious example of a burden that affects both the Minister—it is explicitly imposed upon the Minister—and people who make an application. It seems to me that it is obvious in those circumstances that one needs a wider definition than simply "upon".
Lord Kingsland: With great respect to the Minister, he has answered my question as I suspected he would have to. There are two quite separate issues here. I repeat my submission that they should be better distinguished in the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: In response, I turn first to what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. He was concerned that the amendments were designed to reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. That is not the case. We are seeking to impose appropriate constraints upon the exercise of executive power. Much has been made by us of our wish to support regulatory reform, but the ultimate aim is to deregulate. Yes, there is a two-way street, but in this case it is very different from the Act of 1994, in that that provided for a one-way street that allowed for the reduction of burdens only. This Bill asks us to accept a much greater power, a power of the executive to impose burdens and to increase costs where necessary. We must view this matter with care to ensure that adequate safeguards, which need not interfere with its effectiveness, are put in place.
I hear what the Minister says with regard to the word "affecting"—that in his view this would limit the range of reforms and we do not want to lose the flexibility that was there in 1994. However, as we are all deeply concerned about this point, we are seeking to improve the Bill. While we are supportive of regulatory reform and deregulation that can be effective and speedy, we are concerned that we shall be accepting a wide power. We hear what the Minister says, but we believe that the parameters, as currently drafted, make the power too wide. So these two amendments were a way of seeking to narrow that power without reducing the effectiveness.
I shall refer to one example. We hear what is said about using the Regulatory Reform Bill in relation to a number of proposals that the Cabinet Office has already issued—for example, putting cautions, reprimands and final warnings on the same footing as other criminal records and giving offenders a clean sheet after a certain period. We want to be sure that that is done in that way and not by primary legislation.
I hear what the Minister has said and although I do not entirely agree with him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert
("(b) the continuance of any of those burdens,
(c) the alteration or increase of any of those burdens or creation of new burdens, and").
The noble Lord said: Last night we sat in a Chamber that was packed to the rafters with Peers considering, with some passion, matters affecting the most fundamental issues of human life. Less than 24 hours later we few, we puzzled few, sit poring over one of the driest pieces of legislation that will go through your Lordships' House in many a year. For all that, it is not an unimportant measure and not a boring measure, as I believe I saw the Minister's lips describe it, but a crucial measure. Of course, he did not so describe it! It is one that could have great ramifications for us and for those for whom we legislate into the future.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I deal carefully with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, standing in my name, as Clause 1 is very much the heartland of this Bill. Apart from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, my amendment is the most radical. I am sure that the fact that any Peer has had the temerity to try to improve upon hard-considered wordage such as exists here will have caused a great groan in the offices of the parliamentary draftsmen.
I confess to being a long-in-the-tooth lawyer who has spent a good part of his career poring over constitutions. The reason why I have tabled these amendments is that I have sweated—that is the only appropriate word—for a long time to understand exactly what is the scope of Clause 1(1). As has already been said, Clause 1(1) defines the scope, the object, the purpose of the whole Bill. Unless a reforming order can be brought within the ambit of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) in Clause 1(1) it cannot be brought at all.
Clause 1(1)(a) is clear. It talks about an object which is,
"the removal or reduction of any of those burdens".
I believe that paragraph (b) is beyond safe and clear interpretation.
I hope that the Committee will allow me to go through this matter somewhat carefully. Not only do we few zealots who are here this afternoon need to understand what this Bill is about, but lawyers, citizens and even the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will have to look at the consequences of these measures. Of course, Her Majesty's judges will occasionally, I am sure, have the task of deciding whether an application for a judicial review of a government seeking to use what will then be an Act is or is not well founded.
My first objection is that paragraphs (b) and (c) in Clause 1(1) deal with apples and pears. The four categories listed are supposed to be the four objects to be pursued by an order laid under this Bill. Yet under paragraphs (b) and (c) a condition of proportionality is put into the pot. I believe that that, of itself, is likely to confuse. For that reason, the proportionality condition would be much better placed in subsections
170
(1) and (2) of Clause 3. Amendment No. 29, which has not been grouped with Amendment No. 3, would have that effect.
My second objection is that Clause 1(1)(b) as drafted is not construable. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for quoting it. Clause 1 states that any order has to pursue one of various objects, including those in paragraph (b), which states:
"the re-enacting of provision having the effect of imposing any of those burdens, in cases where the burden is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its retention".
The phrase "those burdens" plainly—this is the one provision in the clause that is beyond doubt—refers back to the burdens imposed by the legislation that is being reformed. Then we come to the phrase,
"the benefit which is expected to result from its retention".
What does "its" refer to? I have sought high and low through the clause to find an answer. It cannot refer to the "provision" because the provision is being re-enacted, and "its" refers to something that is being retained. It cannot refer to "those burdens", because "its" is in the singular, and "burdens" is in the plural. Moreover, what is the "retention'"? What is being retained?
I turned to the Explanatory Notes. I commend the Government and the officials who drafted them; they are, on the whole, tremendously good and useful, especially the tables at the back, which are useful to duffers such as myself, who find that approach much simpler. However, although the Explanatory Notes have 49 pages, this heartland provision of the Bill is dealt with in only one sentence, which states.
"Paragraph (b) allows burdens to be carried over from the legislation under reform, as in the DCOA"—
that is, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—
"but only where they — pass the test of proportionality".
If that is what this provision is about, why on earth does not the Bill say so? That is what led me to the extraordinary presumption of proposing to replace paragraph (b) with the phrase,
"the continuance of any of those burdens",
which is contained in Amendment No. 3.
The Minister may well tell me that the amendment's wording does not satisfy the parliamentary draftsmen. Whether or not my proposed wording does the trick, I urge the Government to examine the clause with an open mind and to have sympathy and regard for all those hereafter who will have to understand it. The public are entitled to have clear legislation—or, at any rate, legislation that is as clear as the circumstances allow. Although I am the first to admit that this is an extremely difficult piece of legislation to frame, the difficulty of framing it must be matched by the clarity with which those difficulties are contended with. For reasons that I have endeavoured briefly to enunciate, that is simply not the case in this context.
My only comment on Amendment No. 55, which is grouped with Amendment No. 3, is that it is consequential.
Finally, I thank officials at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet Office for the assistance they gave me in my attempt to understand these provisions. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 4 to 8.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment for precisely the same reasons as were given by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He has moved the crucial, radical amendment. Like him, I found trying to get to the root of the Bill's proposals a somewhat agonising experience. I became concerned and horrified at its width, and about the want of safeguards in relation, in particular, to paragraphs (b) and (c) in Clause 1 (1).
To save much time, I seriously suggest that the noble Lord's approach, as outlined in Amendment No. 3, and in Amendment No. 29, which is the sister amendment—Amendment No. 55 is merely consequential—as a matter of principle is right. If that principle were agreed to, it would become impossible for me to move Amendment No. 10 in its present form because Amendments Nos. 3 and 29 would subsume proposed new paragraph (1 A) in my amendment. That would involve a form of double counting with the same approach. I firmly support the noble Lord's amendment. If that goes home—if it is agreed to—that would alter my whole approach to the Bill.
Lord Borrie: I want to raise one query with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I know that he is seeking to improve, and has carefully examined, the paragraphs in Clause 1(1). He criticised the wording in paragraph (b). He said that its concluding words, "its retention", could not refer to "burdens" because that is in the plural. However, the second line of that paragraph—line 13 on page 1 of the Bill—refers to "burdens" and to "burden" in the singular. Does not "its retention" mean the retention of that burden?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The word "burden" in the singular would be a new one, and to talk of its retention is therefore a contradiction in terms.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I do not know whether it is convenient at this moment to ask a slightly broader question that arises in relation to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It concerns the general philosophy vis-à-vis regulations and primary legislation, or the power to amend regulations versus primary legislation. I ask my noble and learned friend the Minister to put on the record the Government's philosophy in terms of intentions. Of course there could be a qualitative criterion relating to the importance of primary changes of policy; it would match the need to have primary legislation. One would assume that many broad fields of policy are
172
compatible with the thinking that lies behind the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the Bill is as dry as legislation gets in terms of drafting. It will be difficult to spell out in the Bill the point that the noble Lord is getting at. Will my noble and learned friend make a slightly broader statement clarifying the position that lies behind the points that we are discussing?
Viscount Goschen: I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I remind him that the Minister offered several explanations of the type of circumstances in which the Bill's philosophy would be used. The argument from this side of the Committee is that the Minister is asking for such extraordinarily wide powers that it is not good enough to say, "Well, it is our intention to do this and that, and we can explain the philosophy that lies behind the Bill". We need to convert some of those assurances, which we take in good faith, into specific provisions in the Bill.
In our debate on the previous amendment, the Minister said that he did not feel that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, which proposed changing the words, "with a view to", was the most important of amendments. He said something to that effect; perhaps he said that there would be other amendments that were of equal importance. In fact, it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said that. I apologise to the Minister. We will come back to this matter again and again. I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may put the record straight. I did not say that the amendment was not important. I said that it was the first of a series of amendments and was in a somewhat different category.
Viscount Goschen: I wholly accept the words of my noble friend. My memory fails me. One Member of the Committee—I shall check Hansard to see who it was—said that there were more important amendments to come. If I am wrong, I shall write to whoever it was who did not say that!
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, attempted to clarify the wording of paragraph (b) and I welcome that initiative. I am not sure whether his wording is the best possible but the burden lies on the Minister to clarify the jumbled mess we have in front of us. We need clarity.
I now turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Under certain circumstances, the proposals which are emanating in this succession of amendments limit the occasions on which the measures in the Bill can be used. That is wholly to be welcomed. If the Committee is presented with a clear Bill indicating specific circumstances under which the powers can be used, it is more likely to pass the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal first with the general philosophical point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. As has been made clear throughout

173
the passage of the Bill in this House, and as was made clear throughout the passage of the 1994 Bill, it is not intended to use these powers under the Bill for matters which will be regarded as significant and controversial in political terms; matters of policy. Therefore, it would be wrong, for example, to use this Bill to make any changes in relation to controversial employment law.
The Bill is intended to provide a process under which regulatory regimes which need reform can receive it. There can be differences of opinion about the best way of dealing with that; not political-type issues but issues of substance as regards the best way of doing that. Therefore, the procedure envisaged in the Bill is a wide and statutory period of consultation; a hearing before the committees in both Houses of Parliament which can call evidence, decide what they think and make a report; and then each House of Parliament will approve the regime or not, as the case may be.
The process involves many more stages than the ordinary process which applies to secondary legislation. It is a process in which there can be detailed scrutiny of the legislation being passed. What it allows to occur, which presently cannot occur, is a detailed reform of, for example, fire or weights and measures legislation which would not otherwise find parliamentary time and would require it because the kind of amendments envisaged would require primary legislation.
It is most important that these new provisions are given new scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament because they will have an effect on what can be done by this form of secondary legislation and what must be done by primary legislation. Therefore, I welcome the kind of amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, because it gives me an opportunity to describe precisely what the Bill seeks to achieve.
However, I utterly reject two aspects of what the noble Lord said. First, parliamentary draftsmen are delighted when they hear that there is a "Lord Phillips' amendment" to consider. Secondly, with respect, I believe that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that there is a lack of clarity in relation to the Bill. There can be a legitimate debate about whether the safeguards and scope of the Bill are adequate but the idea that the Bill is not clear is misplaced.
Paragraph (b) allows the re-enacting of an existing burden. The Bill uses the word "re-enacting" rather than the word "continuance" because in many cases where one is creating a new regulatory regime one would want to do so in one piece of legislation rather than leaving littered all over the statute book bits and pieces which must be examined in order to discover one's statutory obligations. In those circumstances, it seemed sensible to allow for the re-enacting of existing statutory burdens. That is why the word "re-enacted" is used rather than the word "continuance".
The noble Lord raised a point about the word "its". With respect, there is no difficulty in relation to that. "Any of those burdens" is in the singular. The provision refers to a burden which it is envisaged will
174
continue to exist. The fact that "any of those burdens" is in the singular is exemplified by the fact that a subsequent paragraph provides for cases in which the burden—that is singular—
"is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its retention".
I see no difficulty whatever in relation to the clarity of the provision. With the greatest respect, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was wrong in saying that there was a lack of clarity.
Viscount Goschen: That must be a matter of judgment. If at a dinner party table I read out paragraph (b), I suspect that some people might think there was a lack of clarity. If I sat down with a team of parliamentary draftsmen cross-referencing to other parts of the Bill, I suspect that they would say that there was perfect clarity. Between the two extremes of the argument—and I have deliberately polarised it in order to illustrate the point—the issue is not clear. The noble and learned Lord believes that it is.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is interesting to identify the kind of dinner parties the noble Viscount attends—those at which people read out paragraph (b) of this clause! I suspect that its clarity would depend on the time of evening it was read out.
I turn to the next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury; the removal of the proportionality protection to Clause 3. It may be useful now to identify the safeguards in the Bill—they appear in Clause 3—in order to see how they relate to the proportionality provision. The safeguards in Clause 3 are a fundamental part of the Bill.
Clause 3 provides, first, that no order may remove "necessary" protection; secondly, that it cannot remove a right or freedom which people could reasonably expect to continue to enjoy; and, thirdly, that any order-imposing burdens must strike a fair balance between the rights of the individuals affected and the more general—
Lord Goodhart: With respect to the noble and learned Lord the Minister, Clause 3 does not provide that. It does not provide that the order cannot remove any necessary protection; it provides that the order may be made only if the Minister is of the opinion that it does not remove any necessary protection.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is correct and I was not seeking to indicate otherwise. I am seeking to identify the stages which must be gone through as a matter of fundamental safeguard. However, the noble Lord is right to make that point. Those three safeguards, which depend upon the opinion of the Minister, are limitations. No order can be made which, in the opinion of the Minister, offends those safeguards.
The proportionality test in Clause 1 is in a different category for precisely the reason identified by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It is one of the objectives which must be satisfied before an order can reach the

175
stage where the safeguards apply. Each new or continued or increased burden in an order must be proportionate to the benefit expected to result from it. There is more protection in that respect if it comes in Clause 1—namely, it is the objective of the proposed order—than if it is dealt with under Clause 3. Therefore, the objective of proportionality is to be satisfied before one reaches the safeguards identified in Clause 3. We believe that that is the right format before we get to the point when an order can be considered either by a parliamentary committee or Parliament itself.
The result of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is to reduce the protection provided by the Bill. There is no lack of clarity which requires to be dealt with. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not believe that Standing Orders prevent me saying, "Hands up all Members of the Committee now present who still understand Clause 1(1)(b)?" Not a single hand is raised, not even that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
Lord Borrie: I did not wish to play games in Committee.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: For the Minister to say that Clause 1(1)(b) is clear is a statement that I shall cherish, especially falling from his lips. It is not clear. I ask the noble and learned Lord to reflect on my attempted analysis of the clause as drawn to satisfy himself that, quite apart from the language, it achieves its intention.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am in grave danger of being helpful to the Minister. I think that I understand what the Minister is getting at, but I see a problem with the drafting. One wonders whether the deletion of "retention" in paragraph (b) and its replacement with "re-enactment", which refers back to the beginning, would make the provision internally consistent.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am obliged to the noble Lord. That is precisely the kind of point which requires reflection. On the face of it, that would be an improvement. I entirely reject the suggestion that the protection is reduced by putting the proportionality test into Clause 3. It does not in any way reduce the effect of it. In any event, the noble and learned Lord will have noted that Amendment No. 29 removes the subjective test. In the circumstances, time for reflection is the better part of valour, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, after ("is") insert ("necessary and").
The noble Baroness said: In rising to move Amendment No. 4 and speak to Amendment No. 7, I should like to consider the question of whether one of
176
the tests which a burden must satisfy before it is imposed by the means proposed in the Bill is that it is necessary, or that the appropriate test is merely that it should be proportionate. In our law the concept of proportionality is relatively new. As far as my researches have taken me, the first time that the term was used in your Lordships' House in the sense in which it appears in this Bill was in the speech of Lord Diplock in the Council of Civil Servants v The Minister for the Civil Service in which he said:
"Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when … one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review.
The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'.
That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality', which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community".
That was in 1985.
There have been further case-by-case developments in which the concept of proportionality has been used as a kind of touchstone in the application of the Wednesbury test, but the examples are relatively few and far between and the law still seems to be in the early stages of development. Yet here we are being asked to introduce the concept of proportionality into a Bill with wide-ranging implications, without any form of definition at all. It is simply assumed that all will know and understand the term. This is to do with clarity.
As I indicated at Second Reading, as far as I am able to understand the matter, "proportionate" has a quasi-technical meaning, although it is far from precise. It connotes the striking of a balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of the public at large, and in addition that any particular burden is to be no greater than that which is judged necessary to achieve a particular object; in other words, one is required to engage in a balancing act in order to determine the net effect. But how is such a balancing act to be used as the test under the Bill to determine whether or not a burden should be imposed in the first place? I suggest that it is no answer to say, for example, that because the net effect of private burden versus public benefit is nil, that is a reason for introducing the burden in the first place. That would amount to regulation for regulation's sake. It must follow that there should be a threshold test based on the measure of the net benefit achieved.
What is missing in the formulation of this clause is a primary requirement that the imposition of a burden should be necessary, not merely that it should be proportionate. Let us consider an example. A requirement may be imposed that in order to practise a particular trade, a licence is required for which a fee should be paid. The level of the fee may be reasonable in the context of the profits of the trade and the regulatory burden that it places upon the persons involved. But it should be a requirement of any regulatory reform which brings with it the imposition

177
of such a system of licensing that the introduction of such a system is conditional upon the achievement of an identifiable measure of net benefit.
In the light of the deregulatory aims of the Bill—I stress those words—we propose that the measure should be one of necessity. If the Government argue that proportionality subsumes necessity, they should say so in terms; alternatively, if the addition of the word "necessary" has merely declaratory force, let the Government so declare. In this way any doubts will be dispelled. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support my noble friend's amendment. Surely, the Minister accepts that one may have a provision where the burden is clearly proportionate to the benefit but it is wholly unnecessary. When one approaches this situation, does one not initially have to decide whether what one intends to do is necessary in all the circumstances? Although I may oversimplify it, this matter goes to the root of the problem. Does the Minister accept the proposition that there may be a burden that is proportionate to the benefit which in the circumstances is wholly unnecessary?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not intend to stand up and say that the Government favour unnecessary reforms to legislation. To that extent I agree with the argument, but not the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was good enough to respond to my challenge earlier this week to provide an example of a case which was proportionate but unnecessary. I shall turn to that in a moment.
Without being a lawyer, I should like to say a word about the meaning of "proportionality" and whether it is too subjective to provide a quantifiable test. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her quotation from 1985. I believe she will agree that, whether or not Lord Diplock is quoted, proportionality is a recognised legal term which means that any new burden that an order imposes must be in proportion to the benefit gained from it. Therefore, an order cannot be used to impose any new burdens without a clear indication that they are justified. However, it would not make any sense for the Bill to define proportionality too narrowly; for example, it would be too limiting to say that there should be a fixed ratio between benefits and burdens that could not be exceeded. Perhaps we can turn to that point in more detail when we consider a later amendment. It should be for Parliament and its committees responsible for the implementation of the Bill to decide in each individual case whether the proportionality test has been met. I have then to ask whether there are any meaningful examples of a case where "proportionality" is met but "necessary" is not. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is very clear that there are examples, but does not give any.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, gave me an example of where, in order to practice a trade, one has to impose a licence and require a fee for that licence. She suggests that that is an identifiable measure of net benefit. That is exactly what is meant by proportionality. That is exactly what is achieved by
178
proportionality. The word "necessary" does not add anything to it. Her example is precisely the point that the Bill and the Government are making. If it is not necessary to do something to achieve a benefit, it follows that it is necessary not to do it in order to be proportionate. I firmly believe that the word "necessary" is needed on the face of the Bill—
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware that the phrase he has just used, that if it is not necessary to do something it is necessary not to do it, is a phrase first used some 300 years ago by the great Conservative political philosopher Viscount Falkland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am aware that there is a history to that phrase. I would not have used it in parenthesis if I had not been aware of that, although I did not know it was Viscount Falkland who said it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for educating me on that.
Clause 1 is concerned with the scope of the Bill. That scope is at all times subject to the safeguards and the processes which are provided later in the Bill. A major element of the consultation and parliamentary scrutiny process will be to ensure that the reform is necessary. In that sense, I accept the use of the word. But the proportionality test already covers that issue.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have no wish to prolong this matter, but it is an important point. The Minister indicated that scrutiny by Parliament would be partly through the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and partly through Parliament itself. Does the Minister accept that if the word "necessary" is not in Clause 1 of the Bill it will not be an issue which the Committee would or should consider and it will then only be a matter for parliamentarians to consider?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is nothing added by the word "necessary" which is not already available in the legal concept of proportionality.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wonder whether that is quite right. The Minister said there is nothing needed; there is no meaning that can be given to the word "necessary" if noble Lords accept the amendment because there are safeguards later on in the Bill. That is a fairly circuitous argument. Surely there is no objection to including the word "necessary" on the basis that the submissions made by noble Lords are right? Supposing they are wrong? It is an obvious measure of clarification; it is a matter of logic. What is the objection to it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would not say that if he had the noble Lord, Lord Renton, sitting in front of him, as he so often does.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, correctly said, proportionality requires any burden to be no greater than necessary. That is why proportionality is adequate for the purpose and does not require the word "necessary" to be on the face of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: The wording of Clause 1(1)(b) says that the burden must be proportionate to the benefit. Does the Minister accept, therefore, that if there was an example where a burden was lifted, a benefit, say in monetary terms, of £5 million, and another burden was imposed, say of the equivalent value, that could be said to be proportionate? The burden would be proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result and it would be perfectly in proportion. However, under those circumstances it might not be necessary to impose that second part of the burden on some particular group. Therefore, there is an example where there is proportionality but there is not necessity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: You would hardly do it if in order to remove a burden with a weight of x you were imposing a burden of 10 times x on the same or on different people. That would not be permitted under Clause 1(1) anyway.
We introduce proportionality in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 1(1). The reason is that it is recognised that in the spectrum of legislation which needs to be considered for the overall purpose of improving the lot of our citizens, whether corporate or individuals, there are the simple cases of the removal or reduction of burdens; the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies in subparagraphs (a) and (d); the more difficult cases where there have to be burdens which are re-enacted for the greater good of the greater number; and the even more difficult case of subparagraph (c) where new provision has to be made to impose burdens, again for the greater good of the larger number. That is what proportionality means.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful for the debate on the subject. I cannot and do not agree with the Minister. A number of noble Lords are clearly articulating that proportionality is different from necessity in the sense that something might well be proportionate but not necessarily a necessity. Therefore, what is wrong with adding it anyway? If there is no problem with the use of the word, is it such a problem to add it to the Bill because in our view it adds clarification?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that is other than a rhetorical question, the answer is that one does not add words when the existing words are adequate for the purpose. If the concept of proportionality is as I claim, and as the draftsman has provided to deal with those matters which are necessary for the purpose of the Bill, one does not add words. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, if he were here, would agree with me.
Baroness Buscombe: I hear what the Minister says when he says "if the use of the word proportionality is adequate for the purposes". But we are questioning whether that is the case. I will not get far on that point. But I want to add that one of the reasons for pressing the point is that we are continuing, as we shall right through the Bill, to be mindful of the fact that this is a
180
Bill with a very wide scope. We believe that it makes absolute sense to ensure that when these different orders arise to be discussed, in large part outside the two Houses of Parliament, not only is there a proportionate benefit but that it is necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("and strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by it").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendment No. 8. Both of these amendments are in the nature of probing amendments and seek to add at lines 14 and 19 respectively of page 1 the expression,
"and strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of the persons affected by it".
It had been my intention to engage in a long series of questions about the meaning of the word "proportionate". However, such has been the brilliance of the exposition, by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, on the meaning of the word, that I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to pursue that line with the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I shall content myself with asking him to explain to the Committee the distinctive role that proportionality, on the one hand, and the striking of a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created, on the other, have in the application of the rules in Clauses 1 and 3. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment seeks to add the fair balance test in Clause 3(2) and to insert it in Clause 1. We think that that is a bad idea and the noble Lord has abandoned that as a basis for the amendment. He is nodding so I do not need to deal with the basis of the amendment. As far as concerns the point he raises, "proportionate" has a legal and a clear meaning. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, read extracts from cases which was very helpful from our point of view. My noble friend Lord McIntosh read a prepared brief which defined what "proportionate" means. It has legal meaning. The noble Baroness and my noble friend defined it clearly.
The test that is laid down in subsection (2) is about the public interest being balanced. Before the Minister can propose an RRO he has to be of the opinion that the provisions of the order taken as a whole—not just looking at the individual burden—strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of the persons affected by the burden being created. What the statute is directing the Minister to look, if it becomes law, is this: here is a burden that is going to be placed on particular people; before I can move to an RRO, in my opinion, can this burden on the people affected be justified when looking at the whole order to be proposed, and is that burden justified in the public interest? That is a wholly different kind of test from

181
that so eloquently defined by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and defined by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his response. Can I conclude that, at least in respect of the matters to which he referred in his response, there is a clear two-stage process? First, the criterion of proportionality must be satisfied. If it is not satisfied, that is that. Secondly, even if it is satisfied the Minister must still go on to Clause 3(2) and further satisfy himself that a fair balance is struck between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes. I hope that I made it clear in my earlier response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Clause 1, when it refers to proportionality, is defining an objective of the order, so the order proposed has to satisfy that. It is one of the objectives that if there is a burden, whether it be continued or newly imposed, it has to be proportionate as defined in Clause 1. That is a separate requirement from the Minister having the opinion, looking at the RRO as a whole. It should be remembered that "proportionate" in Clause 1 refers only to burdens and that Clause 3(2) refers to the order as a whole. So separately from satisfying the proportionate test in paragraphs (b) and (c), the Minister has to have the opinion that Clause 3(2) is satisfied. They are two separate requirements, but we would describe them as having one objective. Once the objective is satisfied, one still cannot do it unless one satisfies the requirements in Clause 3.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Will he confirm that the expression "taken as a whole", in Clause 3(2), which occurs just before the expression,
"strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created",
in no way dilutes the proportionality test?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): In calling Amendment No. 6, I must advise the Committee that should it be agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 due to pre-emption.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 6 and to speak also to Amendment Nos. 9, 54 and 56. Amendments Nos. 54 and 56 are minor consequential amendments and I shall say no more about them.
As we indicated at Second Reading, my party gives general support to the objectives of this Bill. The Bill gives wide powers to the Government to legislate by order rather than by primary legislation. Therefore, it needs to be looked at with a great deal of care. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 provided for the removal of burdens and allowed new burdens to be imposed only if they were imposed on the same persons or bodies but were less onerous than the previous burdens which they replaced.
A number of orders—many of them very useful—have been made under the 1994 Act, but the number has declined in recent years, allegedly because the obvious targets for deregulation have been hit and nothing much has been left. I am not sure that that is entirely true. Appendix C to the Memorandum of the Cabinet Office, which is printed in the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on the Bill, lists 24 reforms that the Government either intend to bring forward or could bring forward under the powers in this Bill. As the Appendix itself points out, 10 of them could be brought forward under the 1994 Act. However, the Government want to create further powers. We have been told that Clause 1(1) lists the four objects on which powers can be exercised. Clause 1(1)(a) restates the existing powers under the 1994 Act.
I do not have as serious an objection to Clause 1(1)(b) as my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It seems to me that this is directed to the rationalisation of existing legislation. It is a power to re-enact legislation imposing burdens, and if it goes no further than that, I can see no serious objection to it; nor do I see any objection to Clause 1(1)(d) which deals with the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies.
I am seriously concerned with Clause 1(1)(c) which allows a government to use a procedure to make new provisions imposing burdens if the burden is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation. That is not very much of a restriction because governments of any hue are not in the habit of imposing burdens which they believe are disproportionate to the benefits which will result from those burdens. Other parties may have a different belief but a government will normally believe that they are acting in the public interest. I accept that there is further protection in Clause 3, to which we will come later in Committee, but I am unhappy about the general power to increase existing burdens by order even if the new burden is not balanced by a reduction in other burdens.
At the heart of this debate is the fact that the aim of the Bill should in general be one of deregulation. If the Committee wants evidence of that, I merely need to point out that deregulation was the main theme of the Second Reading speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Perhaps I may refer to various passages of the speech. The noble and learned Lord opened by saying:
"The Bill will provide a major tool for this and future governments to reform entire regulatory regimes and to tackle unnecessary, overlapping, over-complex and over-burdensome legislation".
He went on to say:
"It facilitates reducing the burden of regulation".
He continued:
"The Panel for Regulatory Accountability is pursuing vigorously its remit of modernising the regulatory system, simplifying existing regulation and easing regulatory pressures on business and the public sector".
He went on to say that,
"we need a wider-ranging reform power so that we can over-haul and reduce burdens on business".
Later in his speech the noble and learned Lord said:
"We want the Bill to bring about the sensible reform of regulatory regimes, and such rebalancing will often involve the redistribution of burdens".—[Official Report, 21/12/00; cols. 851–853.]
There is nothing in those remarks about the increase of burdens. They are all directed towards deregulation.
Clause 1(1)(c) its present form goes well beyond deregulation. Amendment No. 6 therefore proposes the removal of paragraph (c). The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, supports that amendment. However, unlike the noble Lord, I think that the simple removal of paragraph (c) would be too draconian. I accept that there is a case for using a power under the Bill to rearrange burdens by, for example, imposing a new burden on A in place of an existing burden on B. I have therefore proposed Amendment No. 9. The effect of the amendment is that where powers under Clause 1(l)(a), (b) or (d) are exercised, a new burden may be imposed but only if that burden is proportionate to the benefit from the removal or reduction of other burdens under the order. The result is that the new burden must be balanced against the removal of other burdens and the emphasis remains broadly on deregulation or rationalisation of an existing regime.
I do not believe that my amendments would significantly reduce the powers to make appropriate orders. I have already referred to the 24 proposals in Appendix C to the Cabinet Office memorandum. So far as I can see, none of them would be excluded by the proposed amendment. There could be a few cases in which the Government could be prevented by the amendment from taking what might otherwise be regarded as reasonable action.
One case which was put to me and which appears on a different list was an order requiring more information, such as mandatory mileage recording to be given by car owners to the DVLA to inhibit cheating by the sellers of second-hand cars. That undoubtedly imposes new burdens both on the DVLA and on those who have to submit reports to it. That would be an increase in burden not matched by a reduction in other burdens. I accept that that would be a desirable objective and in itself I would think it a legitimate subject for legislation by order. But I believe that such cases would be few and far between and that it would be better to accept an inability to legislate by order in those few cases as the price for reducing the risk that this wide and extensive power given to the
184
Government could be abused. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to my amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: As I indicated at the beginning of our debates today, I feel that this is perhaps one of the more fundamental amendments to the Bill. Although the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are somewhat modified by his second amendment, Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 6 standing by itself appears to strike at the very roots of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quoted the Second Reading speech of my noble and learned friend the Minister. While the Bill is very much concerned with making it easier to improve and develop the deregulatory objectives of the 1994 Act, it is something more. It is meant also to enable the Government in the first place and Parliament and its scrutiny committees in the second place to examine the possibility and desirability of making a regulatory reform order that involves imposing new burdens as well as deregulating.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should make it clear that for me, although obviously not for the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 are Siamese twins. I would in no way wish to see Amendment No. 6 accepted without Amendment No. 9.
Lord Borrie: I am delighted to hear that. Otherwise I would wish to make my remarks more extreme in terms of condemning Amendment No. 6. In relation to both amendments, my noble and learned friend the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others have helped to explain the use of the word "proportionate", which is one of the key safeguards in Clause 1. We have also had discussion on Clause 3, particularly Clause 3(2), which states that the Minister must be of the opinion that the provisions of the order strike a fair balance.
One could go on to talk about all the other safeguards in the Bill which many Members of the Committee may think are stronger in reality than the safeguards of parliamentary control over an ordinary Bill as it passes through both Houses—the tremendous safeguards of the so-called super- affirmative procedure process, the role of the scrutiny committees and so on. Those safeguards are vital.
It is true that Amendment No. 6 does not stand by itself but is grouped with Amendment No. 9. I do not wish to be condemnatory of the amendment but it strikes me as being somewhat narrow. I shall be interested to hear my noble and learned friend's response to Amendment No. 9. However, I think that I would prefer Clause 1 as it stands.
Lord Norton of Louth: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 6, to which I have added my name. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to the extent that I think it is a fundamental amendment, along with one or two others that we shall discuss later. I should like to respond to some of the points that the noble Lord made.

185
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be pleased to know that I agree with him to a greater extent than he thinks. I did not put my name to Amendment No. 9, as I too was looking for an alternative formulation of words, but looking through it I cannot find a better form of wording than the noble Lord has brought before the Committee. Therefore, I support Amendment No. 9, and I take the noble Lord's view that the two amendments are indeed Siamese twins. I want to put the case against paragraph (c) as it stands, which is the basis for then making the case for Amendment No. 9.
The Bill, as we have heard, is designed ostensibly to facilitate deregulation. That was the thrust of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in moving Second Reading. The Government propose to use the provisions of the Bill to reduce the burden of regulation on business, charities, the voluntary sector, individuals and legal persons. That is commendable. In order to achieve that goal, we have a measure that introduces what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has described as an unprecedentedly wide power.
Given the scope of the Bill, it requires detailed scrutiny by the Committee. We need especially to force the Government to justify those provisions that appear to go beyond, or at least to stretch, the purpose of the Bill.
Paragraph (c) deserves particular attention. It takes the Bill beyond the ostensible purpose of deregulation. It permits the making of,
"new provision having the effect of imposing a burden".
Prima facie there is a case for subjecting it to critical scrutiny and asking whether it should, as it stands, remain in the Bill. Is there a case for the paragraph? Let me anticipate the Minister's justification.
The case for the Bill—I have no doubt that this is in the Minister's briefing—is that the power to impose new burdens is necessary in order to achieve an even playing field. There may be occasions on which ensuring that a regulatory regime is equitable involves burdens being imposed on bodies not previously subject to regulation. Furthermore, as I am sure the Minister will remind us, the provision is subject to the safeguards written into the Bill, and indeed to the additional test of proportionality. My problem with this defence is twofold: first in terms of scope and secondly in terms of appropriateness.
I pointed out on Second Reading, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the paragraph is a free-standing one. Winding up for the Government on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, argued that it was not free-standing, in that it was subject to the other provisions of the Bill. In arguing that it was qualified by other parts of the Bill, he was correct. However, his comments did not negate the truth of the assertion that the paragraph is free-standing in relation to the other subsections of the clause. There is no specified link between the subsections. A Minister may make an order for the purpose of reforming legislation,
"with a view to one or more of the following objects".
186
In other words, the order may be confined solely to achieving the object of paragraph (c):
"the making of new provision having the effect of imposing a burden".
As I pointed out on Second Reading, it would be possible—unlikely, but possible—for Ministers to rely solely on this paragraph for introducing orders under the Bill. That would render the Bill a means of imposing only new burdens rather than a tool for getting rid of unnecessary burdens. The making of a new burden under the paragraph has to be proportionate to the benefit that is expected to result from its creation. It also has to meet the tests stipulated in other parts of the Bill. There are thus hurdles, but I am not sure that the opportunity to get even to the starting line should exist. The scope is far too broad. The paragraph is not confined to the purpose for which the Government wish to use it.
The paragraph should, at a minimum, be redrawn to provide that new burdens can be introduced only as a corollary of the removal of a burden and the need to achieve equity in regulation. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 9, and I welcome it. It is clear from the memorandum submitted by the Cabinet Office to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that the objectives of the clause are meant to tie in with one another. However, it is not clear that, as drafted, they do so.
If the scope is not limited, in the way suggested by Amendment No. 9 of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, there is an important question as to the appropriateness of retaining this provision in the Bill. I can see the case for achieving a level playing field. However, I am not certain that a free-standing power to introduce new regulations should be possible through a measure such as this. New regulations should derive from some clearly defined statutory objective.
I appreciate that orders under the Bill—this is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—will be subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. However, there is an important principle at stake. The power to impose new regulations should derive from specific primary legislation identifying the purpose for which regulations may be made. Primary legislation has a higher political profile than the order-making process, and it affords more opportunity for all Members to discuss it and propose changes.
Paragraph (c) as it stands is, on the face of it, a step too far within the context of a Bill that imposes such unprecedentedly wide power. I therefore support Amendment No. 6, and as a corollary warmly support Amendment No. 9.
Lord Skelmersdale: Is not that to the point? When one is making new provision, as the paragraph tells us, one is by definition imposing new burdens. If one is imposing new burdens, one is almost always changing policy. If one is changing policy, it should be by primary legislation. Is it not as simple as that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is not as simple as that for the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord

187
Goodhart, as I understand their submissions. What they are both saying, as I understand it, is that there should not be an objective in the Bill that allows one to impose a burden where there is not some relationship with the removal of a burden. Both noble Lords are prepared to accept provisions whereby new burdens can be imposed, but only in the context of an order that also removes some other burden. The two do not need to be connected, but the order as a whole has to remove some burdens in order for a new burden to be imposed.
In his second amendment, Amendment No. 9, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, proposes a test of proportionality in relation to any such new burden, a test which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to support.
I should like to deal with the matter in two stages. First, is it right that there is the free-standing objective in Clause 1(1)(c)? I accept the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that it is, as a matter of drafting and construction of the Bill, a free-standing objective. That means that one can get through the objective requirement—the requirement of Clause 1ߞin relation to something that only imposes a burden. It obviously must satisfy all the other safeguards, which are fairly important, but I think we need to address that particular issue.
We believe that it is right for there to be such a provision. I made it clear on Second Reading that it would be used only very rarely, but we believe that there will be circumstances in which it is worth using it. I should also make it clear that in the explanatory notes, at paragraphs 40 and 41, we also said that it would only be very rarely used.
I should like to illustrate the circumstances in which the provision would be used, by way of an example. School governing bodies have responsibilities for some aspects of the repair and maintenance of voluntary aided school buildings. Disagreements often ensue as to who should pay for what—whether it should be the governing body or a local authority. These are time-consuming and frustrating disputes, which lead to an administrative burden on all those concerned. The DfEE could propose a regulatory reform order under the Bill to impose burdens on school governors, making them responsible for all the repairs. Any additional cost burden that they incur under that would be offset by grants. So a burden would be imposed on school governing bodies, but there would be no additional financial burden. It would get rid of the administrative problems that arise in relation to that process.
Additional grants are given on a discretionary basis, and so there is no legal burden to be removed in relation to those. Initial analysis suggested that, in legal terms, this proposal—which is a beneficial proposal and is number 11 in the list that we have—would amount solely to the imposition of burdens.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to another example in relation to the DVLA. I have not had a chance to check whether that is an example of where there is no reduction in burden. It could well be. I shall need to check and write to the noble Lord.
188
Taken in the round, the result in relation to the school example would be a system that is clearer and simpler for all. It would save the time spent on resolving disputes.
Further analysis has identified the existence of a burden in legislation that can be removed—by which you could justify it—but that is not central to what is being done. It is plainly not inconceivable that this kind of proposal would occur again, where you could not identify some collateral burden which could also be removed.
The question we ask ourselves in relation to this is whether we should really seek to eliminate the possibility of a class of reforms where the imposition of a small legal burden removed a massive administrative one. That would be the effect of Amendment No. 6, which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Norton of Louth: I thank the Minister for giving way. The example of imposing a burden on schools—and I speak as a school governor and a former chairman of the governing body—is fine if the Minister then exercised the discretion to provide the funding for the schools to fulfil the new burden imposed on them. But what if he does not exercise that discretion? Under this measure, one could impose that burden with no compensating grants to schools at all. If that route was taken, I would regard it as extremely negative.
The Minister intends to come up with other examples of burdens with a beneficial effect, but they have to be offset against the potential of that kind of negative burden, which could be imposed without any compensating benefit to those affected.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: At the moment I am saying that the position under the existing law is that you are dependent upon the discretionary grant being given. What you achieve by this is that you get rid of the massive administrative and bureaucratic problem by identifying clearly where responsibility lies. Inevitably, if the repairs were justified, no doubt the discretionary grant would be given—although, of course, I should not be taken as in any way tying the hands of the Department for Education and Employment in that respect.
The example I have given is a case where, by making clear where responsibility lies, you lift an administrative, bureaucratic burden. That does not justify under the terms of the Bill because the Bill is concerned exclusively with legislative burdens. We accept that the circumstances in which this would apply would be rare. The example that I have given looks to me, quintessentially, like something for which it will be very hard to get time in primary legislation. It is something which, after consultation and consideration by the two committees of both Houses, would be worthwhile to do by RRO. It is something that people on the ground would appreciate being done because it reduces a burden.
One, maybe two, examples have been given—I shall have to check in relation to the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—of where it is worthwhile.

189
Should it be dependent, as the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Norton, suggest, on being able to identify somewhere a burden? It does not matter if the burden is not connected with the burden that is being reduced; there has to be some burden somewhere. What is the sensible course in relation to that? We think that the sensible course is to include paragraph (c) because it allows you to do the kinds of sensible things that I have described.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point and that example, surely the example he has given, at some length now, is exchanging one burden on A, the school governors, to a burden on B, the education authority, perhaps, or the education committee of a local authority. That is exchanging one burden for another. It is not a new burden. It is a new burden on A, taking one away from B, but it is not an altogether new burden. I understand paragraph (c) to be concerned with totally new burdens. That is why my argument about primary legislation comes into play.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The effect of the proposal that is being discussed is that there is no burden on the local authorities at the moment but there are constant rows as to precisely who is responsible. You therefore make it clear that the school governors have the burden. You could not do that under the proposals made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Norton, unless you could identify some existing burden on local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, as a school governor, will confirm, you cannot identify such a burden. Ergo, you cannot do it for purely technical reasons.
Moving on to the second part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which seeks to alter the test of proportionality in relation to any new burdens that might be imposed by order, this would, of course—as I think he recognises—be a different test of proportionality to that which would exist in relation to the re-enactment of existing burdens. His amendment, as I understand it, leaves Clause 1(1)(b) in place and proposes different tests for new burdens as opposed to re-enacted burdens.
I believe that the test of proportionality as it stands in Clause 1(1)(c) is a stronger test than that proposed by the noble Lord. We believe that it is important in terms of proportionality that any new burden should be looked at in terms of what it achieves in itself and at what cost, not by weighing it against the burden that has gone.
Perhaps I may take the example of reforming fire safety. Current fire safety legislation is bewildering and complicated. It is spread over more than 120 different statutes and a similar number of regulations, and much of the legislation overlaps. Although theoretically on different people—owners and occupiers—it is in practice frequently the same person on whom different overlapping burdens are imposed. So the burden being removed is only the excess of whichever is the greater of the two where both apply.
190
But there is also confusion. People have to work out, and take advice on, which burden they have to comply with.
The reform, if it goes through under the regulatory reform order, would sweep away much of this legislation and create a single fire safety regime that everyone could understand. It is important to know that the burdens imposed by the new regime are proportionate to the benefits resulting from it. It would be a very difficult exercise to assess whether the burdens in the new scheme were proportionate to the removal of the confusion under the old scheme, which is what the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggests. Surely people want to know whether or not the burden imposed on them is worthwhile for the benefits they get, rather than some difficult comparison with the old burdens that they were under.
Lord Skelmersdale: Why can that not be done under paragraph (b)?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That refers to existing obligations. This involves a new obligation.
Lord Skelmersdale: It deals with the reform of obligations. The Minister has just said that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What we are dealing with here is where a new burden is being imposed. Paragraph (b) deals with continuing existing obligations. These are two separate issues. I do not think that the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Norton, have any problem with paragraph (b); they accept that there is no problem if you are just continuing an existing burden.
I appreciate the noble Lord's concerns that there must be some assessment of the overall pack age. That is the function of the fair balance test at present; to weigh up the benefits to all against the burdens on those affected. So what we currently provide is stronger than the amendment proposes because we have tests that the burden must be proportionate and that there must be a fair balance between benefits for the many and burdens for the few. Whereas under the amendment it would be possible for huge benefits to lead to disproportionate burdens, it would achieve all that is done under the fair balance test at present but would lose the proportionality test.
Let me further reassure Members of the Committee that their concerns are addressed in the Bill. Clause 3(2) provides that the Minister must be of the opinion,
"that the provisions of the order, taken as a whole, strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created".
This means comparing like with like.
We can return to this matter when we debate Clause 3. It is worth pointing out that two other safeguards also apply to orders, irrespective of whether they impose burdens. The Minister must be of the opinion that the order maintains any necessary protection and that it preserves any rights and freedoms that any

191
person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. That opinion is to be informed by the thorough consultation required by the Bill; it will then be tested rigorously by the two scrutiny committees and the two Houses of Parliament.
For those reasons, we believe that the provision in Clause 1(1)(c) should remain an objective of the Bill, even accepting, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that it is free-standing. We believe also that the proportionality test proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is not as effective as the proportionality test that we have already imposed. We also ask noble Lords to bear in mind that that is all in the context of the safeguards in Clause 3.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: Will the Minister give an indication of the extent to which he feels, in having prepared the Bill, that the provision in paragraph (c) would be brought forward? Does he think that any such eventuality would be extremely unlikely—perhaps in the region of 10 per cent or so of the type of orders that he has considered? Or does he think it likely that all the provisions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) will be used? I do not expect a mathematically defined answer, but some indication would help the Committee. We clearly have some real difficulties over the issue of imposing new, free-standing burdens. The Minister has gone to some lengths, and we appreciate his effort, to describe a relatively complex example relating to a specific circumstance in which it might be necessary to use the provision in paragraph (c). It might also be argued that, if this provision gives so much difficulty and is not expected to be used very often, the Minister might have to accept a clipping of his wings in this area. I should appreciate some guidance from the Minister.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I said, the provision is expected to be used very rarely.
Viscount Goschen: I hoped that that would be the reply. I tried to quote the Minister previously and was shot down in flames. It was worth his restating it. In that case, is it worth the bother of creating a provision which clearly causes Members of the Committee considerable difficulty. An administration that is not guided by the philosophies and principles that the Minister so eloquently describes may use it to impose wholly fresh burdens.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the answer to that is "very rarely". We believe that in the context of the safeguards and the close parliamentary scrutiny to which these orders will rightly be subjected, the benefits to be obtained from the provision are worth having.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should be grateful if the Minister would explain a little further the example that he has used again and again of a school where there is disagreement between the school itself and the
192
education authority as to which is responsible for the buildings. Under the existing provision in paragraph (c) what benefit is expected to result from the creation of the burden? Plainly, it cannot be said that the repair of the buildings is the benefit, because one or other of the bodies, the LEA or the school, will do the repairs. Therefore, am I right in thinking that the benefit that will flow from this provision will be a reduction in hassle between those two bodies and the administrative expense associated with it? If that is correct, how can it be said that there is proportionality, as that will be a relatively minor matter compared with the cost of repairing the school buildings? Under the model mentioned by the Minister a school would, beyond peradventure, then have the burden of repairing the buildings. That burden could run into half a million pounds a year—as against the burden of the removal of the administrative hassle, which may amount to £20,000.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The benefit is the removal of time and money spent on determining who is responsible. The burden will not involve a school in any additional expenditure, because in practice it will always receive grants to do the work. Therefore, the burden of there being no way out of the legal burden is matched by the fact that there is no administrative hassle and no additional expense in relation to the repair of the school.
Lord Norton of Louth: Before the Minister finally sits down, perhaps I may return to the point about education. The Minister is almost using tunnel vision in this case: in saying that a burden might need to be imposed but not recognising that, in the context of education, we could identify a large number of burdens that schools would be happy to have removed. So in that example a balance could be struck.
The Minister says that the provision in paragraph (c) would only rarely be used. But there is nothing in the Bill that ring-fences its application. Potentially, it could be used a great many times—indeed, it might be the only provision that could be used. That is the worry. The Minister has given examples of where the provision could be beneficial. I can think of plenty of examples where this route might be attempted. The Minister's point is that it might not succeed because of parliamentary scrutiny. But it might succeed. This route might be used to impose a large number of undesirable burdens.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, in relation to the noble Lord's point about education, let us suppose, as is the position, that the DfEE legitimately identified the issue of the responsibility of voluntary aided schools in relation to repair of the buildings as causing a problem. Is it wrong for them to say, "Let us see if we can solve this problem?", rather than saying, "Let's see if we can solve this problem—oh, in order to solve it we have got to look around for some other burden". That does not appear to be a direct or sensible approach.

193
The second point relates to whether the provision could be used for "bad" purposes. First, the Minister has to have an opinion on the three matters set out in Clause 3; secondly, there must be a consultation, statutorily defined in the Bill; thirdly, having gone through that consultation, the Minister must reconsider whether his draft order is right or wrong; fourthly, he must publish the results fairly of the whole of his consultation; fifthly, he must satisfy the committees in both Houses that it is an appropriate course to take; and sixthly, he must satisfy the Chambers of both Houses that it is appropriate. Is that a satisfactory series of protections to ensure that a "bad" order does not go through? A decision and a judgment have to be made.
Lord Norton of Louth: Perhaps I may quickly respond on the latter point about the procedure. I shall not take up the Committee's time now; I shall return to the point in relation to later amendments. Will the Minister confirm a fairly straightforward point. He has dealt with the qualitative dimension, but what about the quantitative one; namely, that the Bill provides no limitation on the extent to which this provision can be employed? It could be used extensively.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is why one is looking all the time at the terms of the Bill and its scope. The wider the scope, the more safeguards there must be.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I apologise for returning to this point. I am grateful to the Minister for a tour de force, but getting into the guts of these provisions will be helpful in future. In the example of the school, the Minister said that in applying the proportionality test there will be no burden in terms of the cost of maintenance of the school because there will be grants.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the burden that is being imposed is a statutory obligation to be responsible for the repair of the school. When I said "burden" in terms of there being no extra financial cost because there will be discretionary grants, I meant "burden" in a loose sense, not by reference to a legislative burden, which is what the Bill is concerned with.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I think that working through the provision in paragraph (c) will be extremely difficult, especially when it comes to proportionality—because it is a burden in one sense and not in another. I merely point out to the Minister that this becomes something of a riddle.
Lord Goodhart: We have had a pretty full debate on this group of amendments. I am grateful to those who have contributed to it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for the support that he has given. I agree with everything that he said. I agree in particular that where you are increasing
194
burdens—where you are relying on Clause 1(1)(c)— there should be clearly defined statutory objectives in primary legislation. A general, free-standing power, not so limited, appears to me to be unacceptable.
The Minister suggested that improvements could be made to the legislation involving an increase of burdens without a corresponding reduction in other legislative burdens. In opening this debate, I accepted that possibility. However, I believe that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury made a number of strong points to indicate that the example of the school is perhaps not as clear cut a case as it might be. I believe that it is agreed by everyone that reliance is likely to have to be placed on Clause 1(1)(c) on only rare occasions. As it now stands, it raises important constitutional issues that need to be very carefully considered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on this occasion. However, we may well need to reconsider the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to the procedural requirements of subsection (1 B) below, no provision may be made under subsection (1) above (other than by remit conferred by statute) to impose any offence, obligation, liability or administrative control not in force on the date on which this Act takes effect which involves the burden of any sanction, or to increase the burden of any sanction, in force on the date on which this Act takes effect.
(1B) The procedural requirements before any provision referred to in subsection (IA) above may be made areߞ

(a) that the Minister seeking to make such provision shall have laid a draft order in both Houses of Parliament;

(b) that a report shall have been received either from a Select Committee of each House of Parliament, or from a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, as to whether such provision would be required and the burden would be proportionate to the benefit, whether such a provision would be appropriate in all the circumstances; and if so whether the order should be subject to any sunset provision;

(c) that both Houses of Parliament shall have debated and approved the making of such order as laid in draft, or (if so advised) as amended.

(1C) The provisions of this section shall not prevent consolidation of subordinate legislation it' within the remit conferred by statute.").
The noble Lord said: Having listened to the debate on this Bill, it is perfectly apparent that there are basically two key amendments to Clause 1(1). One is the Amendments Nos. 3 and 29 route. The other is the Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 route. Having attended to the argument on both, your Lordships may consider that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is worthy of the most serious consideration.
However this Bill is amended, there is no doubt that the amendment standing in my name would have to be substantially amended in the light of this debate, and that my consequential Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and

195
74 would not be moved. Nevertheless, I want very shortly to make the point that, however Clause I is amended, only due scrutiny can afford an ultimate effective safeguard, and that that scrutiny cannot effectively be conducted without reports from a Select Committee.
At Second Reading, considerable emphasis was placed on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, and by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, who suggested that a sub-committee of the deregulation committee should be set up. Other than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, no one in that debate queried the need for this type of meticulous scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, side-stepped this assumption as misconceived, only applicable to control freak governments. But it is precisely with regard to the "freak control" of the executive under any government—not this Government in particular—that this assumption as to due scrutiny is conceived.
I mention that matter because, having redrafted this amendment in the light of this debate, I should like to return to the question of scrutiny, which is not dealt with in any other amendment. On that basis, I respectfully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
A noble Lord: You have to move it first!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thought I had.
A noble Lord: No, you did not.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the Committee. I understand that I may move the amendment and then beg leave to withdraw it. In that case, I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not going to reply to the amendment, on the basisߞ
Lord Kingsland: If the Minister does not propose to respond to the amendment, it places me in a difficult position because I wanted to ask him a question about it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not propose to respond because I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is suggesting that, in the light of our debate, he wishes to return to the scrutiny issues with a different amendment. In those circumstances, there does not seem to be much point in replying to that which has not yet been formulated.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wholly accept that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 23, after ("Act") insert (", save for this Act,").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is extraordinarily simple. It is connected to subsequent amendments, particularly Amendment No. 13 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, which would make my amendment unnecessary.
Fundamentally, the debates that we have had on earlier amendments have stressed the concern that Members of this Committee have about the breadth of the powers that are being sought. As the Minister has said, there is a very valid argument about limiting the scope of those powers. The effect of my amendment is extremely simple. It proposes that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should not be able to be amended under its own provisions. It avoids the question of circularity. I can find no reason why the Minister might come forward with "resist" written on the top of his piece of paper, apart perhaps from the fact that he prefers my noble friend's amendment.
Surely if even a fraction of the concerns that Members of the Committee have put forward about the scope of this Bill are valid—I certainly believe that they are—it is absolutely necessary to have in place a measure ensuring that this Bill could not be amended by itself. That would be tantamount not only to giving the Minister the key to the room where the statue book is held and a fresh supply of biros to change it as he wishes, but also to allowing him to cut a new key. That would be wholly unacceptable. I hope that the Minister realises that the intention of my amendment is to help him to make his Bill more palatable. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: There are two amendments standing in my name and in the name of my noble friends Lady Buscombe and Lord Northesk; namely, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, both to page 1, line 23. The effect of those amendments would be to make Clause 1(2)(a) read,
"'legislation' means the law contained in any provision of … any Act which was passed before this Act".
The effect of the clause as it presently stands, in conjunction with the remainder of Clause 1, is to permit amendment by subordinate legislation of primary legislation which contains burdensome measures of one kind or another.
No doubt that is its precise aim, but it fails to maintain one very obvious safeguard which appears in the 1994 Act. That Act applied solely to pre-existing legislation. As Members of the Committee are well aware, this Bill applies not merely to pre-existing legislation but also to future legislation.
No one can say—not even, with great respect, the Minister—what the future holds, not least the extent to which future legislation may deliberately be framed in order to take advantage of a power exercisable subsequently to impose regulatory reform by subordinated means.

197
Let us suppose, for example, that it were thought desirable that a particular form of human activity, while not demanding outright prohibition, should be made the subject of a system of licensing and regulation. That activity might be one upon which feelings ran high on all sides of the political spectrum. Primary legislation might be passed whereby that activity became the subject of what is sometimes described as "light touch" regulation.
Then, two years later, the responsible Minister forms the view, or is of the opinion, that light-touch legislation is no longer appropriate and that firmer measures are required. The freedom that was envisaged by the former legislation passed by primary means is now turned on its head, not by the same means as it was passed but by subordinate means.
For example, as the Committee is well aware, one of the options proposed by the Government for hunting with dogs is that that activity should become the subject of regulation and licence. If that option were to become law, enshrined in primary legislation, then, instead of having to face the rigours of primary legislation to amend the licensing of fox hunting, a Minister intent on a regulatory reform would be able to use the subordinate procedure proposed by this Bill to add substantial burdens.
As presently framed, this clause will permit the passing of primary legislation with a view to its amendment by way of subordinate legislation within two years, whether or not that primary legislation has ever come into force. It will apply to legislation the form or content of which not one of us is able at present to predict.
I am well aware that at some future time there is likely to be a change in the complexion of the government of the day. None the less, when pondering this clause, the words "hostage" and "fortune" or, possibly, "blank" and "cheque" spring to mind.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 14 which has been placed in what, in many respects, is a slightly strange grouping. I have no problems with Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Indeed, I very much support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Goschen, which ties in with my Amendment No. 26, as regards ring-fencing measures that cannot be dealt with under this legislation.
I shall direct my comments to Amendment No. 14, which provides that an order under this measure cannot be applied to any Act of Parliament passed in the three years prior to the day upon which an order is made. As the Bill stands, the period is two years. As I said earlier, I appreciate that the purpose of this Bill is to get rid of unnecessary and unworkable regulations. There is no disagreement as to the desirability of that goal. I realise that there is a case for saying that it should be possible to get rid of a regulation as soon as it becomes apparent that it is burdensome beyond the extent intended, or has ceased to be necessary. Quite clearly, that reasoning would appear to justify the two-year provision in subsection (2).
198
However, I believe that there are two persuasive reasons why the period should be longer. First, there is the danger that the existing provision for two years may encourage laxness in legislative drafting. Ministers and their officials may be tempted to rush through measures, knowing that if there is a problem it can corrected a few years down the road. As we have already seen, the drafting of Bills can be rushed, resulting in the Government re-writing legislation as it goes through Parliament. Indeed, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill stands as a notable example in that respect.
We should be wary before doing anything that may encourage that tendency. The example that the political parties Bill suggests is not that we should introduce provision for correcting mistakes two years after the event; but rather that we should strengthen the capacity for parliamentary scrutiny of Bills to ensure that poorly drafted provisions are not passed in the first place.
The second reason for extending the period is that it will usually take a couple of years before the full effects of a measure can be seen. On occasion, we legislate in haste. Government and Parliament sometimes succumb to a moral panic and very quickly pass legislation. The most cited example of a measure resulting from such a panic is the Dangerous Dogs Act. I realise that some may argue that it is pa rticularly apt to make provision to change such a rushed measure two years after it has been enacted. But the counter-case is that there is a danger of rushing into change before the effects are seen. Indeed, it is always possible that government may be subject to a moral panic favouring change.
Under the provisions of the Bill it is possible that a regulation may be introduced—possibly in haste—and then removed two years later, only to be re-enacted a year or two subsequently when it is realised that, after all, some regulation is necessary. It may not be realised, but the potential is there for chopping and changing. If that occurs, the likelihood is that the law will be brought into disrepute.
For those reasons, I believe that there is a case for extending the period under Clause 1(2)(a) from two to three years. This is a modest amendment. The reasons that I have given would support an amendment for four or five years. I am undertaking a balancing act of the sort that the noble and learned Lord would no doubt approve. I see the argument behind the existing provision and do not want to build in too excessive a barrier to introducing orders. However, I believe that problems will arise if the period after which orders may be introduced is too short—hence my amendment. I readily concede that I may not necessarily have got the balance right, but I believe that my amendment is a move in the right direction.
Lord Goodhart: I rise briefly to say that I shall be unable to support Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 tabled by the Conservative Front Bench. I believe that this must be a rolling power and not one that can affect only Acts passed before this legislation itself comes into force. However, Amendment No. 11 moved by

199
the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and Amendment No. 14 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, both address important issues that require some serious consideration. They certainly raise a case to answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can reassure both the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about their amendments. That applies particularly to the noble Viscount. This group of amendments addresses issues of principle upon which we may not reach agreement. However, as far as concerns Amendment No. 11, I hope that I can assure the noble Viscount that his proposed revision is unnecessary. The Bill is already excluded from the power as it does not satisfy the definition of "eligible legislation", which is set out in what my briefing refers to as the chapeau—the bit in italics at the top of Clause 1 which also appears in Clause 8.
This Bill does not have the effect of imposing burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of activity. Of course, an order made under this legislation could have that effect, but the Bill itself will not have that effect. Therefore, the Bill does not fall within that scope and, thus, cannot be amended by a regulatory reform order. The Bill achieves what the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, wishes it to achieve.
Amendment No. 12 is an interesting and particular case. It would exclude Acts that are on the statute book but not yet commenced. I do not need to go back as far as the Easter Act 1928. I am not sure whether that imposes any burdens, but if I go back to 21st March 1997 I hope the Committee will understand what I am saying.
There are Bills which have been found to be defective. One in particular was the Sexual Offences (Protected Materials) Act, which was passed on the 21st March 1997 in a spirit of genuine outrage at the circulation of pornographic material in prisons. It has never come into force because, as drafted, it makes it impossible for defence lawyers to have proper access to certain materials that may be central to the case. As the purpose of the Act was to enhance protection for the victims of sexual offences, the fact that the deficiency has prevented its commencement is a heavy burden on such victims.
I would put it to the Committee that since we have the procedures involving prior public consultation, detailed parliamentary scrutiny and approval by both Houses, this is a good way of enacting the necessary reform, rather than waiting for a legislative opportunity. Of course, in an ideal world legislation would always be right first time, but those who have spoken on these amendments have made it clear that they have the same scepticism as I have about that. We do have an opportunity here for correcting these errors, although they may be rare. I hope that Amendment No. 12 will not be pressed.
200
Amendment No. 13 is much more wide ranging and would exclude all legislation before this Bill receives Royal Assent: in other words, it would repeat the self-imposed restriction which exists in the 1994 Act. If I may explain our thinking, regulatory reform problems have many causes. Sometimes there are problems because legislation passed some time ago no longer meets modern requirements, but they can also be the result of the interaction of overlapping legislationߞlegislation already on the statute book for some time and much more recent legislation. Fire service legislation is a very good example of that. It is spread over 120 Acts, as has already been referred to this afternoon, passed over many years. It is the interaction and overlapping nature of these Acts that is part of the problem.
As I am sure the Committee is aware, the 1994 Act limited eligible legislation to that passed before the 1993–94 parliamentary session. This was a significant limitation, and it is one of the reasons why it is running out of steam and there are fewer and fewer deregulation orders under that Act. When we consulted over reforming this Act in 1999 we tackled this very issue, and there was unanimous support for the idea of extending the range of eligible legislation to that passed after Royal Assent to the Bill.
What we have done instead is to opt for a two-year cut-off period for legislation. I will come to the actual period when we consider Amendment No. 14, but it means that there can be no question of a "knee-jerk" reaction to amend legislation newly placed on the statute book. It also means that we have a tool with which to tackle as yet unforeseen problems arising from burdensome legislation: indeed, better ways of solving problems than imposing burdens. If we agreed this amendment we would be limiting our ability to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, made a very rational case, if I may put it that way, for Amendment No. 14. The 1994 Acts stipulate that no order can amend any Act passed before the 1993–94 session, and we have sought to remove that restriction. Again, for the reasons I have given about overlapping legislation, we need to be able to tackle older and more recent pieces of legislation at the same time. We realise that the exact period will be a matter of judgment, but we think that two years is the right period to avoid what might be called laxness in drafting.
There are two kinds of safeguard against that. First of all, the two-year cut-off means that it is not a "quick fix", because we have to live with the effects of the legislation for two years or for such time as the legislation is in effect. Of course there may be delays. Secondly, it is a high price to pay for making mistakes if you go through the very lengthy and difficult procedures involved in the super-affirmative resolution provided for in this Bill. I really do not think that any Minister in any government would embark on this route without careful thought. It is a balancing act, but we think we have the balance right.

201
I am advised that in relation to what I said about the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the "chapeau" is the paragraph immediately after Clause 1(1) and is the important element which ensures that this Act is not covered by itself.
Viscount Goschen: Certainly the term is not one I have come across before. I do appreciate the Minister's attempt to reassure me on this issue; and to some extent he has reassured me on certain parts of it. I think it is clear that this Bill imposes burdens, not just on the Government but on Parliament. Whether or not you consider Parliament to be under the control of a Minister of the Crown (and I suspect it is not) the noble Lord will be able to give me a definitive judgment. There are also many burdens imposed by the consultation process on various statutory bodies, including the Scottish Law Commission among others.
One can imagine circumstances where an order is brought forward under this Bill and someone says, "This is a burden we could well do without and so we shall bring forward an order which removes a burden under this very Act". I do not suggest that the Minister should respond to that specific point at this stage, but I feel that he did not fully explain how this Act could not be used to amend itself. If there is any shadow of a doubt, I would suggest that the position should be made crystal clear.
The noble Lord might well say that to do this might offend my noble friend Lord Renton by using a small number of extra words. I believe our primary consideration should be how strong are the safeguards contained in this Bill.
On the arguments deployed against Amendment No 13 proposed by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, there is a strong argument which says, "Let this Bill deal with prior mistakes anomalies or inconsistencies that have built up—as, for example, over the 120 statutes which contain fire legislation"—unless the Government propose to come forward with another 120 statutes covering fire legislation, which I am sure they would not. Surely this Bill must be focused on the vast breadth of the statute book which lies behind us.
To say that this Bill, when enacted, can be forward looking would be an incitement to sloppy drafting, and I am quite sure that Ministers would receive briefing from officials to the effect of "Never mind if you get it slightly wrong here: we have a joke get-out-of-jail-free card under the Regulatory Reform Bill and we will use that." Just occasionally I have spied briefs saying, "Don't worry about the appeals process: there is always judicial review." To that, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleagues, when they were on the Benches on this side of the Chamber, would say, "Oh, but that's a cumbersome process." I think the same type of argument would apply in present circumstances.
I feel that this is a genuine issue that we shall need to return to at a later stage of the Bill. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("includes") and insert ("is confined to").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is straightforward. It is similar to Amendment No. 1 moved by my noble friend. It provides for provision made by order under this clause to be confined to fulfilling the objects stipulated by the clause. Under subsection (1), the Minister may by order make provision with a view to one or more of four objects. We have already discussed that point. By stating:
"The provision that may be made by order under this section includes",
subsection (5) appears to provide scope for orders which fulfil purposes other than those envisaged under subsection (1). My amendment deletes the word "includes" and inserts the words "is confined to". I believe that that makes the clause internally consistent and removes the possibility of seeking to make an order which goes beyond what is intended by the clause. The Minister may say that that is not necessary. However, I suspect that my wording would remove any doubt and, therefore, would be preferable to the wording of the Bill as it stands.
In any event, my instinct is to be wary of the use of the word "includes" in legislative provision. I believe that we should be sceptical each time that word appears. The meaning of the provision should be stated clearly and, wherever possible, it should be exhaustive in terms of what it encompasses. That is especially so when it confers powers and where the creation of a criminal offence may be involved. Given the significance of this measure, we need to ensure that it is as clear and precise as possible. The use of the word "includes" appears to provide a much wider scope than clearly is intended. For that reason, I bring the amendment before the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I identify myself wholly with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has said.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I pause to see whether the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is going to move the amendments in this group which stand in her name.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. It is our intention not to move these three amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, the reassurance that he requires in relation to his amendment. Of course, it would not be possible to include in an order anything which was not within the objective set out in Clause 1(1). It is not intended that Clause 1(5) should include wider objectives. It is a question of how Clause 1(1), not Clause 1(5), is put into practice.
Although I can understand the noble Lord's suspicion of the word "includes", if that word is not inserted, anything in the new order which is not

203
amendment or repeal, does not impose a burden on a Minister only, or is not incidental or consequential is excluded. Therefore, any new material is excluded from an order if the words "confined to" are used instead of "includes".
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and that I have indicated what the consequences would be if his amendment were to be pursued. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Norton of Louth: I believe that I am persuaded by what the Minister says. I shall want to reflect upon it, but I see some force in what he says. I shall consider whether there is a way in which the wording can be ring-fenced so that it still includes the points which he mentioned and, thus, is internally consistent. However, on that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): Before I call Amendment No. 19, I should tell the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wishes his Amendments Nos. 27 and 31 to be withdrawn from this group and taken separately.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("the Minister thinks") and insert ("is").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 27, 31, 41, 46, 47 and 50 to 52.
Lord Goodhart: But not Amendments Nos. 27 and 31, which are in my name.
Baroness Buscombe: I apologise. During the course of the debate at Second Reading, the Minister indicated that tests existed to de-limit the scope of any use made of the order-making power introduced by the Bill. He spoke in terms which moved the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to comment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had spoken as if the requirements in Clause 3(1) were objective; that is, that the scope of any secondary legislation introduced pursuant to the Bill would be dependent not upon an expression of subjective ministerial opinion but upon objectively judged compliance with the tests laid down in paragraphs (a) and (b) in this clause.
However, it is plain that it is not intended that that should be the case, the tests being, as they are, scattered about the Bill. They are all intended to be subjective, not objective. What is the effect of this and other clauses, as presently drafted, which are dependent for their effect upon ministerial opinion? This matter is of great practical importance. Plainly the lawful scope of any exercise of the power granted by Clause 1 is to be determined by reference to the limitation set out in Clause 3.
204
When referring to Clause 1 earlier, I spoke of the need for adequate policing of regulatory reform measures not only during their passage through Parliament but also subsequently. If the limitations set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) are capable of being satisfied by an expression of ministerial opinion, the scope for policing the limitations intended to be imposed upon the use of the power by that clause will be severely limited. Any expression of ministerial opinion, provided it could not be said to be based upon wrong reasons or, for some reason, to be wholly untenable, would pass the test.
That is not an appropriate approach to matters as important as these. It is commonplace for regulatory matters to cause serious and, in some cases, grave hardship. Those affected, particularly where they have no other form of redress, should be enabled to challenge the imposition of regulation in the courts.
The Minister told the Select Committee:
"If you did not have the opinion test but had an absolute test, then the lawyers would rub their hands every time there was a deregulation order and there would be a trial on each occasion".
Plainly, the purpose of the introduction of the opinion test is to avoid deregulation orders being challenged in the courts. However, I say with the greatest respect to the Minister that the fact that lawyers may be rubbing their hands has nothing whatever to do with the matter. I have never heard of a person going to court to challenge the Government because they have removed a burden from his shoulders. There will be a challenge in the courts only if a deregulation order imposes a burden which those upon whom it is imposed see as unfair and unjust. As I said at the outset, those who will be required to bear burdens cast upon their shoulders in the guise of regulatory reform should be the focus of our debate.
Legislation which is protected by an expression of ministerial opinion, if burdensome, is likely to provoke resentment, and the lack of effective redress is likely to increase such resentment tenfold. What are the Government afraid will happen in the courts to their deregulation orders? If they are properly thought out and accord with the provisions of this Bill, why should it be necessary to seek to hide behind the refuge of ministerial opinion? Again, I propose that proper safeguards are introduced to protect those who are likely to be affected by the burden of compliance with regulations created by the secondary methods anticipated by the Bill.
In the case of these clauses, such safeguards are introduced by the removal of reference to ministerial opinion so that compliance with the limitations placed upon the order-making power in Clause 1 can be achieved only by observance, judged objectively, of the limitations expressed in paragraphs (a) and (b). That is what the amendment and those with which it is grouped seek to achieve.

205
I wish to make particular reference to Amendment No. 41 concerning the words on page 3, line 40 of the Bill:
"contains a statement that".
A subordinate provision order is an order that comes into force through the negative resolution procedure. It is not subject to the affirmative or to the super-affirmative procedure envisaged in the Bill. Such an order can be made only if it contains a statement that it makes provision that either modifies a subordinate provision of an order previously made or that it is incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental to the modification.
The fact that the provision may go further than merely modifying the subordinate provisions of the previous order, or further than containing provisions that are merely incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental to the modification, is completely irrelevant. As drafted, all that is required is a statement in the order, however wrong that statement may be.
We believe that that is unacceptable. Either the provisions in the subordinate provision order fall within paragraphs (a) or (b) or they do not. If they do not fall within those paragraphs it cannot possibly be right that those provisions become law merely because it is wrongly stated in the order that the provisions fall within those paragraphs. That is an important point but it is not one that is made against the Minister. I have no doubt that were he to be responsible for a subordinate provisions order it would not contain a statement that the provisions fell within either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) if the provisions did not fall within either of those paragraphs.
However, this Bill is not just for Christmas; this Bill is forever. Who knows what politicians will be like in 50 years' time. I cannot rule out a future Minister making a statement that the provisions fall within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), either through ignorance or worse, when in fact they do not fall within either of those paragraphs. If such a Minister were to make such a statement the order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure only and not to the affirmative or super-affirmative resolution procedure. My comments are directed solely at such future Ministers.
Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider this matter. Present Ministers have nothing to fear. This will not affect them in any way. If the provisions fall within paragraphs (a) or (b) the order containing such provisions will be a subordinate provisions order. The only people prejudiced by my proposed amendment will be such future Ministers who feel able to make the statement that the provisions fall within either of those paragraphs when they do not.
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 46,47,50,51 and 52. The rationale behind those amendments is to minimise the damage that could be caused by an incompetent Minister. As presently drafted, Clause 5 imposes an obligation on a Minister to consult organisations that appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals, to consult statutory bodies or organisations that appear
206
to him to be representative of those bodies and to undertake further consultation, but only if it appears appropriate to the Minister.
Those amendments protect against incompetence. A competent Minister will probably get it right. A competent Minister will be able to recognise organisations representative of interests affected by his proposals and the relevant statutory bodies or organisations. A competent Minister will know when it is appropriate to undertake further consultation. Unfortunately, an incompetent Minister may not be able to recognise such organisations or bodies. Worse still, an incompetent Minister may not even notice that it is appropriate and necessary to undertake further consultation. People need protecting against incompetent Ministers. These amendments achieve that object. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 20 which is grouped with these amendments. I do not need to take up much of the time of the Committee because my amendment is similar in effect to Amendment No. 19. The objective—to remove the subjective element of paragraph (c) and replace it with an objective test is the same.
Orders can be made under this clause with a view to achieving one or more of the objects listed in subsection (1) as this is designed to ensure that orders may be made to provide for such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as is necessary to achieve those objects. I see no reason why that should not be made explicit. Thus my amendment is designed to replace the subjective element with an objective one and to remove any ambiguity.
Lord Borrie: Surely the advantage of the phrase "in the Minister's opinion" in the context of this Bill—I leave aside those concerned with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which is not in this group—is that it emphasises that the Bill is designed around parliamentary scrutiny and control and with a great deal of emphasis in detailed clauses, to which we have yet to turn, concerning the scrutiny committees of both Houses.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, emphasised throughout the desirability of people being able to go to the courts. I would be the last person to suggest that it is undesirable to go to the courts in appropriate situations. But it seems to me that, to a considerable degree, the parliamentary scrutiny that is emphasised is ministerial accountability to Parliament and to its scrutiny committees. In my view that should not be undermined.
The advantage of the phrase "in the Minister's opinion" is that if one then goes to court to seek a judicial review one has to establish a fairly heavy burden of proof that the Minister acted in a way in which no reasonable Minister would have acted. In other words, as the noble Baroness said earlier,

207
according to Wednesbury principles as to reasonableness, that is quite a heavy burden for a person to overcome.
As has been suggested by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in theory, and in many cases if people wanted to, in practice, the courts could have a much greater involvement in hearing arguments as to whether, on the merits, something was appropriate or desirable if the phrase "in the Minister's opinion" were deleted from wherever it appears in the Bill. It seems to me that the efforts of noble Lords opposite are designed to undermine the thorough parliamentary scrutiny that is intended for regulatory reform orders and to introduce in an inappropriate manner the possibility—lawyers would no doubt encourage the probability—of legal action in the courts.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall take up the point that appears to me to be at the heart of this issue—the extent to which the courts should be involved. We are proposing a parliamentary procedure. Without repeating what I have already said, I shall indicate that procedure. First, the Minister who wants to make the reform has to reach the opinion that it does not remove any necessary protection, does not interfere with any reasonable expectation that a person may have of continuing to exercise rights and freedoms and in the case of new burdens they must be proportionate. The Minister must also be of the opinion that they strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected by the burden to be created.
There is then an obligatory consultation period that will probably last for 12 weeks. If there were no consultation, it could not proceed. Once the consultation is complete, the Minister must assess the responses and reassess his opinion. If the weight of evidence from the consultation were that the proposal removed ministerial protection or interfered with a reasonable expectation that someone may continue to exercise a right or freedom, or if the balance were not struck, a notional wicked Minister in the future—according to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—rather than a current Minister, would bash on, despite the fact that the consultation would tell him he was wrong in his opinion, and he would stick to his opinion.
The next step for that wicked Minister would be to publish in full and objectively the result of his consultation. Having done so, it would be for the two Committees to consider what the result of the consultation was. The document that the Minister published would also explain why he thought he had given the right course, despite the consultation. The proposal may impose new burdens but not replace others, or it may impose new burdens and replace others. If he somehow got through that process, he would have to persuade both Houses of Parliament that the order should be approved. That is basically the scheme of the legislation.
208
The noble Baroness wished to add to that approach the right to consider objectively in the courts whether or not the necessary protection was available, whether that interfered with any reasonable expectation, and whether or not the proposals struck a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected by the burden that will be created.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness—the amendment was plainly moved with the best of intentions—we do not think that the right course is to allow the courts, after Parliament has scrutinised the legislation with the relevant amount of information and in the necessary degree of detail, to try to unhinge the process. The noble Baroness said that that provision would apply only to people on whom burdens were imposed; only they would seek to do that. With the greatest respect, she does not realise what goes on in courts now. There are pressure groups and interest groups, which frequently want to keep burdens that others would oppose. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will break that news to the noble Baroness.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Is the situation that the Minister described a result of the fact that the Government introduced contingent fees for every type of legal action?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am glad that the noble Lord regards the solicitors' profession simply as an interest group or pressure group in that respect.
A serious point is raised in this context; it does more than raise questions about on whom burdens are imposed or about the role of pressure groups, which might think that the right course was to go to the courts. For example, under one proposed order, the provisions will make the circumstances in which trustees can invest more liberal. If a trustee invested in accordance with the terms of that wider provision, and it suited someone financially to challenge the investment, the person would have a financial interest in challenging the basis of the regulatory reform order.
The noble Baroness displayed touching faith in the fact that the only people who would be affected would be those on whom burdens were imposed. However, that does not reflect the nature of litigation these days. Although this is a matter for the House to decide, I do not think that we want a process that involves a mixture of the courts and Parliament. We have faith in the fact that Parliament will appropriately scrutinise the orders. If Parliament does not like what it sees, it will be able to prevent the orders from going through. That is the right approach—Parliament should be the body that determines such matters, not Parliament and the courts. The courts will have a role in relation to judicial review—if no reasonable Minister under all the circumstances could have that opinion—but that is a different and more limited role than that involved in addressing the primary issues of necessary protection, the balance between public interest and the interests of

209
those affected, and the possibility of depriving people of rights that they would otherwise reasonably expect to exercise.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am delighted to hear the Minister's faith in the process of parliamentary scrutiny. Such amendments under the Bill, if it is enacted, would be introduced on the Government's initiative. The Government are the Government only because they have a majority in another place. Therefore, if any scrutiny were to be effective, perhaps to the extent that the measure was rejected, the measure would have to be rejected in your Lordships' House. Is the Minister happy for that to happen, if necessary?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have made it clear throughout that the position under the Bill, if it is enacted, is that there will not be a regulatory reform order unless it is passed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is made absolutely plain in the Bill. We have made it clear at all stages that we are dealing with orders that are not politically controversial, although there may be controversy about the detail. If they were politically controversial to a serious extent, that would not be appropriate for a regulatory reform order. We are discussing matters that would otherwise have to be dealt with in primary legislation, although it would be difficult to find time in legislative programmes, which are often crowded. I am more than happy to agree; yes, the orders would need to be passed by both Houses. If an order was not passed by the House of Lords, it would not get through.
Lord Norton of Louth: I want to pick up a specific point relating to the noble and learned Lord's earlier comments on parliamentary scrutiny. He said that a Minister would have to persuade both Houses to approve an order. He rightly said that both Houses would have to approve it—it would come before both Houses for a vote—but if the Select Committee on Deregulation in the other place did not divide on an order, it would not be subject to debate in the other place. Although there could be a vote in certain circumstances, the House of Commons might not debate it at all. I realise that that may be regarded as a rather narrow point—it is premised on agreement in the Deregulation Committee, although there may be disagreement in the House of Commons. I seek to clarify the fact that there are circumstances in which the other House would not have an opportunity to debate a draft order.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am reluctant to comment on procedures in the House of Commons. The Bill does not seek to specify the precise procedures by which a regulatory reform order should be processed through either House. It is for either House to decide how it best wants to deal with that. It can respond as it sees fit, if the Bill is enacted.
Lord Norton of Louth: The Minister is correct. That matter is not dealt with in the Bill. I was relating the matter to intended practice, as that appears in the explanatory memorandum. The Minister was right—it is up to the two Houses of Parliament to decide how to proceed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I move on to two other points, the first of which involves the comments of the noble Baroness, Baroness Buscombe, on Clause 4(4). Should a subordinate provisions order be triggered by something that "contains a statement" from a Minister? Her interpretation of the effect of the law is correct. There will very rarely be cases in which that provision gives rise to problems. If there are genuine doubts, we believe that initially the right person to decide the matter is the Minister. If Parliament disagrees with the Minister—again, this should be a parliamentary issue, not a court issue—Parliament can reject the provisions on those grounds.
The form of words adopted is frequently used in parliamentary drafting. For example, I refer the noble Baroness to paragraph 26(2) of Schedule 2 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, of which she is no doubt already aware, where that form of words is used. There is nothing sinister or odd with their use.
Secondly, consultation depends on making a judgment about who the affected parties might be. In addition to the Minister's opinion on that matter, the committees can seek guidance and advice and take evidence from anyone. The Cabinet Office will put on the website the details of the consultation that is going on, and anyone who is not consulted at the behest of the Minister or the committee can make submissions and express his views. Other than by involving those whom the Minister thought were the appropriate people to consult, it is hard to see how one would trigger the consultation process. That is a parliamentary process, not a process which should be driven by court decisions.
I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and not move her other amendments in the group.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read with care what he said in answer to my proposed amendments. If the executive acts responsibly, it should have nothing to fear from the courts. I shall also read with care paragraph 26(2) of Schedule 2 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 2001
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations will extend the assistance by way of representation scheme to cover applications to a judicial authority for an extension of detention under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government are making this change to the scheme in order to ensure that appropriate representation is available to detained individuals when these applications are heard.
Before explaining the amendments in a little more detail, I should first give some background on the procedure to which they relate. A person suspected to be a terrorist may be arrested and held for up to 48 hours by the police under powers contained in the Terrorism Act. During this time the detained person is entitled to consult a solicitor for advice at any time unless a senior police officer authorises a delay in such a consultation. Where permission is given to consult a solicitor, help will be available under the existing police station duty solicitor scheme for the detained person to consult either a quality assured solicitor of his or her own choice or the solicitor on duty at the time. Such help is available without reference to the means of the detained person. I should make it clear that free legal advice in these circumstances is provided under the arrangements as they exist now without the need for any amendment to the scheme.
Where the police wish to extend the period of detention of a terrorist suspect an application must be made to a judicial authority for a warrant of further detention. In England and Wales the application will be made to the senior district judge, or chief magistrate or her deputy, or any other district judge (magistrates' courts) designated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor. Such a warrant, or an extension of it, will authorise further detention for a specified period of time not exceeding seven days.
This is a new procedure and so we have looked carefully at the form of legal help that should be provided. The hearings for an extension of detention under the Terrorism Act may well take place at very short notice and so it will be essential that help is available without any avoidable delay. For these cases we are therefore proposing that a solicitor will be able to give assistance by way of representation without the need for approval by the Legal Services Commission, or anyone else, and without the need to assess the detained person's means. This means that in these particular circumstances a solicitor acting for the detained person will be able to provide advice and representation straightaway.
This form of help is already available to a person in connection with an application to a magistrates' court for a warrant of further detention under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The new regulations
212
effectively extend these current arrangements so that they will also cover applications to a judicial authority under the Terrorism Act. The regulations are compatible with the rights conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend this instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Bar Practising Certificates) Order 2001
7.45 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before this House amends Section 46(2)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 which currently restricts the purposes for which the General Council of the Bar may raise fees from the issuing of practising certificates to the purposes of the,
"regulation, education and training of barristers and those wishing to become barristers".
The basis for the proposed amendment to Section 46(2)(b) can be found in Section 46(3)(a) of the Act which provides that the Lord Chancellor may, by order made by statutory instrument,
"amend subsection (2)(b) by adding to the purposes referred to in it such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
Section 46 of the Act was intended by the Government to resolve the unfairness of the current system whereby some barristers do not contribute to the costs of regulation by the General Council of the Bar; regulation from which all barristers benefit. Section 46(1) of the Act enables the General Council of the Bar to make rules requiring all barristers to hold a practising certificate in order to practise, and requiring them to pay fees for those certificates. The intention behind this order is to extend the purposes for which these fees may be raised.
In contrast to the position of the General Council of the Bar, by virtue of Section 11 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Law Society has long had the power to require solicitors to hold a practising certificate in order to practise, and to require solicitors to pay fees for those certificates. But the Law Society has not been restricted as to the nature of the purposes for which it sets those fees. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said during the passage of the Access to Justice Bill,
"our belief is that it is right in principle that a professional body should be able to spend money generated from compulsory subscriptions only on certain activities".
Section 47 of the Act provides for the Lord Chancellor, by order made by statutory instrument, to limit the

213
purposes for which fees may be raised by the Law Society to:
"(a) the purposes of the regulation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, or
(b) both those purposes and such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
Such an order has yet to be made, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is currently considering an application from the Law Society which seeks to extend the purposes set out at Section 47(1) of the Act for which it may raise fees in the event that the Lord Chancellor exercises his power to amend the Solicitors Act 1974, thereby ending the ability of the Law Society to raise fees for any purpose. The purposes proposed by the Law Society are similar to those proposed by the General Council of the Bar. If the Lord Chancellor decides to approve the Law Society's application, he will lay a separate order before this House for its approval.
However, in the context of considering the order now before this House and the additional purposes sought by the General Council of the Bar, I draw your Lordships' attention to statements made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when debating the implementation of Sections 46 and 47 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. He said:
"I make it clear to the House that 'practice support' or practice management and the 'raising and maintenance of standards' will be covered by compulsory fees for both the Bar and the Law Society. These activities are entirely compatible with the role of the regulatory body and should be included in any order made under any of these amendments".
He went on:
"Those functions of the Law Society and the Bar Council that we can agree are in the public interest will qualify for funding from compulsory subscriptions".
He also made the important point:
"The Government have no wish whatsoever to stifle the many useful functions in the public interest that both bodies currently perform and from which both the public and the Government benefit".
While the Access to Justice Act 1999 restricts the raising of fees from practising certificates to an amount necessary for the,
"regulation, education and training of barristers and those wishing to become barristers",
importantly it also includes a provision to extend those purposes to add,
"such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
The Lord Chancellor made it clear during the debates on the implementation of Section 46 in this House on 14th July 1999 that the wording of the Act was constructed in this way so as to avoid creating a vague and unalterable category of purposes for which fees might be raised. He made it clear that he would be prepared to consider extending those purposes listed in Section 46(2)(b) of the Act. He said:
"I much prefer agreeing activities that justify compulsory fees on a case-by-case basis to creating a rather vague and problematic category".
The General Council of the Bar has recognised the need for a clear statement of purpose in raising fees from barristers. Following discussions between
214
officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the General Council of the Bar and the Legal Services Consultative Panel, the General Council of the Bar submitted an application to my noble and learned friend for the approval of rules made under Section 46(1) of the Act to prohibit barristers from practising unless authorised by a certificate issued by the General Council of the Bar. After taking advice from the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the designated judges, the Lord Chancellor has signalled his approval for the new rules to be made.
But the General Council of the Bar has also invited the Lord Chancellor to make an order under Section 46(3)(a) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 to add the following purposes to those specified in the Act for which fees may be raised: the participation by the General Council of the Bar in law reform and the legislative process; the provision by barristers and those wishing to become barristers of free legal services to the public; the promotion of the protection by law of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the promotion of relations between the General Council of the Bar and bodies representing the members of legal professions in jurisdictions other than England and Wales.
My noble and learned friend is of the view that all of these activities, which are already undertaken by the General Council of the Bar on the basis of subscriptions from its members, are useful functions clearly in the public interest, and that provision should be made within the General Council's new practising certificate rules for them to continue to be undertaken on that basis. Having taken advice from the Legal Services Consultative Panel and designated judges as to the suitability of the proposed additional purposes and consulted the General Council of the Bar and parliamentary counsel as to the specific wording of the proposed amendment, my noble and learned friend has signalled his approval to the further purposes sought by the General Council.
The Lord Chancellor is aware that parliamentary approval of this draft order is required under Section 46(4)(b) of the Act. I believe that the provisions of this order which amends Section 46(2)(b) of the Act are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since an amendment of this nature adding to the purposes for which fees might be raised by the issuing of practising certificates was anticipated during the implementation debates on Section 46 in this House, and Section 46(3) makes specific provision for the exercise of these amending powers, I therefore invite the House to approve the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, during 1999 had the honour to be chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales. That task required me to sit across to the right of your Lordships' Chamber beyond the Bar for

215
many hours as this House debated reform of my profession. Of all the reforms that the Access to Justice Act 1999 achieved, this small step may turn out to be one of the most significant. The Bar is not a statutory body and, until this Act, did not have the power to require its members to pay an annual subscription. That they should, anyone else would regard as self-evident.
In the years since I was chairman, and, before that, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, we sought to modernise the Bar. This step furthers that task. It is little known, but deserves mention, that by raising subscriptions the Bar can better serve the public interest. It does it in education by ensuring that members of the Bar who represent the public have achieved a reasonable measure of professional training. It also does it in regulation by a system of professional discipline which the legal ombudsman regards as the most successful of the schemes with which she must deal. Her assessment is that there is well over 90 per cent satisfaction in those cases where we deal with the public.
Last but not least is the importance of general education and training. The last time I looked at the Bar's annual budget about one third of its total income was spent on education and training. The order seeks to enlarge the purposes on which subscriptions and income can be spent. These purposes are not new but are characteristic of the Bar in times past.
It is little known but well recognised in government that the Law Reform Committee of the General Council of the Bar regularly submits private memoranda to government and civil servants about proposed changes in the law. That contribution has always been welcomed. It deserves to be better known—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith will refer to it—that one of the main features of the Bar's services to the public is the provision of free legal services. The aspect to which I refer—I hope that my noble friend will mention the other with which he has closer connection—is the Free Representation Unit. Every young member of the Bar is encouraged to undertake work in representing the public at no cost to them.
The final matter may in years to come be very important. I refer to the international role of the Bar. Lawyers in this country, as in many others, are vilified day by day because of the obsessional media interest in what they earn. The fact is that solicitors and barristers achieve invisible earnings in this country and abroad of over £1 billion a year. The Bar plays its part in that achievement by expanding its relations with Bars in other countries around the world. I have mentioned just some of the purposes for which this order will allow subscriptions to be raised. I welcome unreservedly this extension. There are occasions when there is a happy union between government action and
216
professional interest, and this is one such. I welcome the order and ask noble Lords around me to forgive me if I do not stay to listen to their contributions.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I declare three interests. First, I am a practising barrister who will have to pay these fees. Secondly, I am a former chairman of the Bar Council. It was some years ago, probably in my time, that this problem first came to a head and we had to grapple with the question of how to enforce subscriptions. Thirdly, for five years I was chairman, and am now president, of the Bar's Pro Bono Unit which is one of the organisations that benefits from assistance from the Bar Council. Since its inception that organisation has received over 2,000 applications for assistance from members of the public. More than one in 10 barristers agree to provide their services free and commit themselves for a minimum of three days a year. The income from the certificates will not be used to pay them in any way, but it is necessary to support the administrative expenses. In those respects the order represents a fair balance between the income the Bar Council will continue to raise on a voluntary basis for its representational activities and that raised through the practising certificate.
My noble friend the Minister said that regulation, which is what the Bar Council does, benefits all barristers. He went on to say that it benefits the public interest. That is what justifies the compulsory nature of the order.
I understand from the present chairman of the Bar that the Bar Council has agreed that its accounts will be subject to external audit after one year and every three years thereafter so that there is assurance that the split between voluntary and compulsory contributions is properly looked at. Subject to that matter, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Brennan and have nothing further to add.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I too have to declare an interest as someone who is likely to pay a compulsory fee for a practising certificate.
As both noble Lords who have spoken before me made clear—I have some trepidation in following two former chairmen of the Bar Council—this is a matter where the public interest is very much concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, explained, the income of the General Council of the Bar will be divided into two main sources. One is compulsory income from practising certificates; the other is the voluntary subscriptions paid by members of the Bar. Up to now the majority of the Bar have paid voluntarily.
Income received from the voluntary subscriptions will be available to the Bar Council for what may be loosely called its professional, its trade union functions—advancing the professional interests of the Bar—rather than primarily for the purpose of protecting the public interest.
The compulsory income obviously should be devoted to the activities of the Bar Council which are in the public interest. I have no doubt that the

217
regulatory functions contained in the Access to Justice Act are in the public interest. But it is necessary for the activities of the Bar to be regulated in the same way as are members of other professions.
The order contains a number of additional purposes for which money raised by practising certificate fees can be spent and which therefore can be taken into account when fixing the level of fees to be charged for practising certificates. As the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Goldsmith, have pointed out, the council participates actively in law reform and in the legislative process. It makes valuable contributions. I believe these are very much in the public interest.
Certainly, the provision of free legal services through the Free Representation Unit and through the Pro Bono Panel, in which the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has played so important a part, are very much in the public interest. It is therefore wholly justifiable that the administrative costs of these should be paid by the compulsory practice certificate fees.
The promotion of the protection by law of human rights and fundamental freedoms is very much in the public interest. It seems entirely justified that, for example, the subvention paid by the Bar Council to the Bar human rights committee should be capable of being taken into account.
The final issue, the promotion of relations between the council and bodies representing the members of legal professions in jurisdictions other than England and Wales, caused me a little more difficulty. That issue comes much closer to the dividing line between the representational and the public interest functions.
It is perhaps not self-evident why it is necessarily in the public interest to pay for attendance by representatives of the Bar Council at, let us say, meetings of the Commonwealth law conference or the annual meetings of the American Bar Association or other similar regions. However, it seems to me that, in an age of globalisation, although these come close to the line, I am persuaded they are on the right side of it and that it is not only in the interests of the Bar itself, but in the interests of this country through encouraging, for example, the use of the English courts by foreign commercial lawyers and foreign commercial clients. Therefore, I give my support to this order and am happy to endorse it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the outstanding contributions to this debate by the Minister, the noble Lords, Lord Brennan, Lord Goldsmith, and, Lord Goodhart, have mercifully left little for me to say.
Those of us who remember the passage of the Access to Justice Act will recall that there were occasions when the relationship between the Bar Council and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was perhaps somewhat less than totally harmonious. Therefore, it gives me particular pleasure to hear two distinguished former chairmen of the Bar, the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Goldsmith, give this order their full support. I also give it my support. On
218
31st January when I pay my fee for my practising certificate I shall feel that I have fulfilled the wishes of all parts of your Lordships' House.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, particularly to those who spoke briefly on the subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for indulging us this evening by having the debate at this time. But I am more grateful for the support that all noble Lords have shown for the order, both from the Opposition parties, and particularly from my two distinguished noble friends who served the Bar so well during their time in office. It is a great boost for the order that both have spoken on it. All that is left for me to do—certainly not to rise to the bait about the Access to Justice Act which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, so temptingly puts before me—is to commend the order to the House
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.9 to 8.40 p.m.]

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Buscombe: We debated this clause at some length but it is appropriate that we have this opportunity to return to some of the major effects of Clause 1 in terms of the Bill as a whole. There is obviously deep concern on this side of the Committee as to the scope and extent of this Bill and its implications.
There are two points that I wish to make in particular. The first concerns the policy that underlies this clause. The second concerns the methods by which we are accustomed to legislate, the changes that this clause will make to those methods and the constitutional impact which those changes will have unless appropriate safeguards are put in place.
My first point is this. The purpose of regulation is to advance the public interest; it is not to promote state control. This Government have spoken more and more frequently in recent days of imposing regulation with a "light touch". That is their phrase, not mine. While that may be their stated intention, that is not the impression that I get from this clause. It is true that the Bill speaks of the public interest, but it also speaks of burdens and much more of the imposition of burdens than the relieving of them. It seems to me that this Bill and the powers envisaged by this clause anticipate regulation in ever increasing circles so that legislation—and I use that word in its very widest sense—might become the province no longer of Parliament but any number of public and semi-public bodies. I am left with a distinct impression that control

219
of the individual by the state by means of a network of statutorily authorised regulated bodies—I am tempted to call them busy bodies—lies at the very heart of the policy of this Government as expressed in this Bill. That emphasis is in marked contrast to the Act of 1994 which had as its sole purpose the removal of regulation.
This Bill—proposing as it does the creation of a power to impose fresh burdens and to do so by means of subordinate legislation through a network of regulatory authorities, not effectively answerable to the legislature—is a different animal entirely. Comparisons between this Bill and the 1994 Act in terms of overall effect are, for these reasons alone, wholly inapt. Any attempt to compare the safeguards provided in this Bill with those contained in that Act for the purpose of demonstrating an adequate level of security would be wholly inappropriate.
Of course we are in favour of the advancement of public interest. It is clearly expedient that we should all be protected from bad practice and equally clear that we should all receive the benefit of good practice. We accept that this may be achieved by means of regulation. This aim of enhancing the public good by regulation is only achievable at the expense of those upon whom the burden of compliance with regulation is cast. It is they, those who must bear the burden of compliance, who are immediately affected by it. It is they whose jobs are made more difficult and whose lives are often turned upside down by it.
As presently framed, this Bill, and this clause in particular, seem to me to divert attention away from those who will suffer from the impact of new regulation or, at the very least, to mask the effect this Bill will have upon our lives. Regardless of the appropriateness of primary or secondary procedures, how are we to know what is a suitable candidate for the procedure envisaged by this Bill?
My second point is of greater constitutional significance. To extend the power to legislate regarding burdens affecting persons is to extend the power to create subordinate legislation too widely. We are all agreed that subordinate legislation is a valuable legislative tool. However, it should not be permitted to be used as a by-pass enabling those who are so minded to avoid the less speedy and altogether more traffic-congested route of primary legislation where such is the appropriate route. Primary legislation benefits from—or perhaps suffers from depending upon your perspective—the sometimes critical nature of public debate. Secondary legislation, on the whole, does not. Furthermore, whereas the passing of primary legislation is a process attended with a degree of thoroughness and intellectual rigour, there is perhaps a tendency for the same processes not to be brought to bear in the case of secondary legislation. These are both good reasons to prefer the paths of primary legislation where appropriate.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation was told by the Minister that there would be a practical limitation upon the choice of areas upon which to practice the use of the power
220
granted by this clause. That limitation will take the form of an "elephant" test. What that means is this. We may not be able to define an elephant but we know one when we see one; likewise, an area appropriate for regulatory reform. We are told that this is the test which will be applied by Ministers before subordinate legislation is thought fit to be introduced under the scheme envisaged by this Bill. This test is proposed because no satisfactory threshold definition can be drafted.
What all this means is that the test that is proposed is so ill-defined as to be of no practical effect and certainly it provides no impediment to an abuse of the power. It is, in truth, no test at all. We believe that this is a wholly inappropriate approach—even when used informally as a threshold test for the application of subordinate legislative procedures—to the amendment of primary legislation especially in a field so wide-ranging as that envisaged by the Bill.
What means are we to be given to enable us to identify our elephant? That is something that we should be told. This Bill does not bear comparison with the Act of 1994 and it takes little imagination to recognise the opportunity for the arguments, once it is passed, that may be applied to justify wide-ranging subordinate legislation along lines as yet unimagined. Much concern has been expressed, for example, that these powers could be used to abolish or at least radically revise licensing laws, that is, beyond the proposals listed by the Cabinet Office which are currently under preparation that could be implemented by this route. That is one small example.
Let the Bill make its aim of reform clear, lest we are all at risk of being submerged in a flood of regulation for regulation's sake. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: I rise to make one or two points on the motion that the clause stand part. It is appropriate that we do so largely for the reason that was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in opening our proceedings earlier. Because of the way the amendments have been scattered around—some touch on rather important issues—there has been no one amendment on which we can stand back and reflect upon the measure of a particular clause as a whole. It is appropriate that we take the opportunity to stand back and remind ourselves of the nature of the Bill.
There are two important points I should like to make. First, this is a Bill with important constitutional implications. We should, therefore, see it as a constitutional Bill, one that should be subject to very special scrutiny by your Lordships' House.
There is a problem that is part of a wider problem. It is something I plan to touch upon in another debate tomorrow. It is that in this country in post-war decades we have lost the capacity to engage in constitutional discourse, to talk about the constitution as a constitution. We used to have it and we lost it in post-war decades. Despite various attempts at constitutional reform and despite the various attempts that have been made over the past 20 or more years, we

221
have not recovered that capacity to talk about the constitution. We need to recover it, and to recover it quickly, if we are to discuss the constitution in terms of not just how it is changing but where we think it is going and the shape that we believe it should take in the future. There is a real danger that we discuss constitutional issues in a rather disparate way. That is exacerbated when we have to discuss a Bill through specific amendments. That is a general point but it is relevant in the context of the Bill. It is a constitutional Bill. It has to be seen in that wider context. I look to the Government for a little greater sensitivity as to the constitutional implications of the measure.
That leads into my second point, which is related but distinct. This is not a managerial Bill. It has managerial implications and there is the danger that one sees it solely as a managerial Bill rather than as a constitutional Bill with managerial clauses. That is an important point. If one sees it narrowly in that sense, it becomes easy to become complacent about the Bill. One then sees it as a mechanism for achieving particular good intentions. As I said earlier, we are not arguing about the Government's intentions but about whether this is the appropriate means for realising those intentions. There is the danger of seeing this as a nice managerial Bill. There is also the danger of complacency, particularly if one takes the view, "This is what we want to achieve. The Bill allows us to achieve it". The problem is that the provisions of the Bill allow the Government to achieve far more than what the Government intend by the measure. That is what we have to be sensitive to.
What could the Bill be used to achieve in terms of what the Government have not been contemplating? As the example given by the Minister revealed, the Government intend it to achieve deregulation. The examples given are frequently difficult to disagree with. The problem with the examples that are given relates to the wider totality of other cases that could come up in the future. There is the danger of simply relying on ministerial assurances. I realise that a balance has to be drawn and that not everything can be written into legislation. In many respects, we proceed on the basis of there being to some extent a self-denying ordinance of the part of government in respect of how we proceed and that provides the context within which Parliament can operate.
None the less, given the nature of this measure, there has to be that wider sensitivity. What worries me is that, in respect of Clause 1, the Government have not indicated any give in relation to the worries that have been raised. There has been an explicit acknowledgement that paragraph (c) of Clause 1(1) is free-standing in relation to the other subsections. Potential problems derive from that. That is the kind of sensitivity we need to have. We need to think through the matter. To what extent can the Bill be ring-fenced in order to achieve the intentions for which the Government have argued they want to use the Bill? That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether the Bill could be used to achieve other purposes.
222
At this stage, I do not want to delay the Committee any further. I just want to put down a marker. Given the nature of the Bill, we have to be sensitive to what the Bill could be used for. I urge the Government to be sensitive to the concerns that have been raised. If they cannot promise to go away and come back with something, they should at least promise to go away and reflect on the matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have heard a great many words about the circumstances in which the noble and learned Lord the Minister believes that it would be appropriate to use the Bill. What I have not heard from him is when he believes that it would not be appropriate to use the Bill. I return to the matter of policy. The noble and learned Lord has placed total reliance on the work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—and quite rightly so. That is the parliamentary backbone to the Bill. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is already an overworked committee. At the very least, its manpower will need to be increased in order to encompass what the noble and learned Lord wants to do with the Bill.
As I have probably just proved in my previous three sentences, I am a bear of very little brain. Therefore, I shall have to do as the noble and learned Lord enjoined us to do at the beginning of the debate on Clause 1 and take the amendments and his utterances as a whole. I cannot do that at this moment. I shall read them very carefully. But I have no doubt that I shall come back to Clause 1(1)(c), which has the effect of imposing burdens of various kinds. It still seems to me that the noble and learned Lord's defence of the provision was that he was seeking to transfer burdens rather than creating new ones. I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord said, but that is my instinct at the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for this reprise of the relevant parts of the Second Reading debate. I do not in any way object to having the fundamental issues behind Clause 1 exposed in the Committee. It is a welcome opportunity. It is true that debate has been somewhat fragmented, although to some extent I blame the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for that. We could have had larger groupings with more coherent content.
Baroness Buscombe: It would be more appropriate for the noble Lord to thank me because I think it was important to take some of these issues separately. They are of profound importance to us on this side of the Committee.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not doubt the importance and I do not doubt the sincerity. I just think that it would have been easier if we had proceeded subject by subject rather than speaker by speaker. That is a tiny and unworthy thought and I do not pursue that issue. However, I pursue very seriously indeed the issue raised by the noble Baroness in her speech. She said that she has two problems with Clause

223
1. The first is the policy behind the clause and the second is the process of legislation. I want to comment on both of those points.
The noble Baroness started by saying that our claim is—she is right—to advance the public interest and to do so by a light touch of legislation. She then said that in contrast to those stated aims, we are imposing more burdens—unlike the 1994 Act which concentrated on the removal of burdens. I think that I have represented the noble Baroness correctly. What the noble Baroness suggests is simply not the case. What has happened is that in the six years or so since the 1994 Act was passed, the Act has run out of steam. It has run out of steam for the most obvious reason: it does not apply to any legislation passed after the 1993–94 Session.
I acknowledge that that could be overcome readily not by a new regulatory reform Bill, but simply by an amendment to the 1994 Act to bring it up to date. But it has also run out of steam because it has become apparent in the intervening years that, whatever good work had been done in the few years immediately following the Act, we have come to the end of what can be done using those methods and that the kinds of problems which we need to address with regulatory reform, with deregulation, are more complex than had originally been thought. The answer does not simply consist of removing or reducing regulation; it does not simply consist of removing anomalies or inconsistencies, as provided for in paragraphs (a) and (d). If we are to take serious regulatory problems seriously, they need a combination of the obvious and simple things which were already provided for in the 1994 Act, with bolder attempts to rationalise a regulatory system, with the intention of reducing burden. That is what paragraphs (b) and (c), which have come under such criticism, are for.
I am not sure that I was right in speaking of the greatest good of the greatest number. I think Bentham was a simplifier. I am a simplifier in a way, but I do not think that that applies to this legislation. However, I do think that the principle of reculer pour mieux Sauter is appropriate here. In other words, it is necessary, in order to achieve our wider objectives, in order to achieve a significant number of those 51 proposals which have been presented to the Committee, to envisage the possibility of continuing or re-enacting some regulatory burdens in order to achieve a greater removal of other burdens, and of introducing new burdens on some people in order to reduce the aggregate amount of burden on those people or on other people. That is the only way in which, on the really complex problems such as fire safety—and many others are immediately apparent—we shall achieve those objectives.
In that sense, to the extent that we have extended the scope of the 1994 Act, it is not out of any intention to increase the amount of burden in total, or even in detail. The intention is to use the whole range of
224
facilities and abilities and powers available to us to more effectively reduce burdens than the 1994 Act made possible.
Lord Norton of Louth: The noble Lord has hit upon the point where the problem arises, because he keeps saying "intentions", and what we are concerned with is the potential effects of the clause. That is the big difference. The noble Lord is making a case for going beyond the 1994 Act. I have no problem with that. It is a question of how far one goes, particularly since the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said that in order to achieve the objective the Bill created unprecedentedly wide powers, not just wide powers. Therefore, it is being taken to a new paradigmatic plane in terms of powers. The problem is not with intentions; it is with the potential effects.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who sought to identify a difference between our intentions and what we are doing. I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth says. I acknowledge that if it were possible to provide a simple test for the wide powers which I think it is agreed are necessary in order to extend the demolition of burdens we would adopt it. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said in his Second Reading speech that he thought he could provide it. I do not think he has done so in the amendments he has put before the Committee. If he did, we would listen very seriously. I am not saying for a moment that we would necessarily accept it, or believe that it would have to be on the face of the Bill, but I understand the natural suspicion—after all, I spent 14 years in opposition prior to four years in government—of government intentions and the natural suspicion of future government intentions. I understand the desire to have some sort of screening test. If any of us can come up with something that is workable and plausible and does not actually restrict the beneficial scope of the Bill, we shall listen very carefully to what is proposed. That is the first issue, the issue of power, following the agenda of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The next issue is what the noble Baroness calls the constitutional issue, which is the issue of the process of legislation. The noble Baroness says that this is too wide an extension of subordinate legislation. Let me first sound a note of doubt about the efficiency of public debate on primary legislation. Again, having spent 14 years in opposition as well as four years in government, I have seen how primary legislation can go through on the nod without adequate scrutiny late at night. I have seen the way in which the scrutiny depends on chance in primary legislation. I think that the very detailed procedures here—their length, the extent to which they involve public consultation, which is not necessarily involved in primary legislation, the extent to which they involve committees of both Houses, the extent to which they come back in draft and are then produced in detail, with a series of consultations—in many ways provide better public debate than primary legislation. So I do

225
not accept the argument that there is anything backdoor or undercover about the measures proposed in the Bill. Primary legislation is in many ways easier than the super-affirmative procedure proposed here. I think that. Ministers in any government will discover that and will retreat to primary legislation. I can assure the Committee that the Labour Government in their second term, when it starts, will have just as crowded a primary legislation programme as before, for exactly that reason.
Lord Norton of Louth: I do not want to prolong this debate, but I should like to pick up on the point about parliamentary scrutiny. I take the noble Lord's point that there is a very real balancing act in terms of the benefits proposed under this measure replicating the 1994 Act and existing methods of primary legislation. I see the argument and recognise the benefits that derive from the process that the noble Lord is outlining. However, one has to weigh that against the fact that primary legislation concentrates the Government's mind far more in that they have to find a slot. Primary legislation, whether one likes it or not, none the less has the potential of gaining the oxygen of publicity, because more time is usually spent on the Floor. That is an important point.
The other point concerns the extent to which Members can be involved, particularly in the other place. The process is very much confined to committees. I have nothing against committee scrutiny—that is invaluable; it is when it is then linked to debate in the Chamber. There are limited opportunities for that, particularly in the other place when it comes both to debate and amendment. That is where the difference arises.
I recognise what the Minister is saying. I recognise that there are benefits in that process against primary legislation. What I draw from that is that there is a case for reforming the way in which we deal with primary legislation in order that the scrutiny through that process is improved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I love this stuff, but we are getting beyond the scope of the Bill. I shall gladly come and take part in a debate with Lord Norton of Louth, at Hull or anywhere else. If I were not in government, I might charge a fee!
I started from the point that the contrast that was being made by the opposition between what is claimed to be a stealthy backdoor procedure and the public debate of primary legislation is not all that it seems. I shall not press the argument further than that.
In this Bill we have the special scrutiny demanded by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I think he is anticipating his speech tomorrow. If we are to ensure that the effect of the Bill is not merely managerial but improves the effect of the Government's relationship with the citizens of this country—which it is capable of doing—we must take seriously any specific amendments which help to achieve that. The amendments that we have had before us today go no way towards achieving that.
226
Clause 1 has survived unscathed the scrutiny of the Committee. I hope that the Committee will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I do not think it is quite true that Clause 1 has gone unscathed. It is clear that there has been a lot of opposition to the drafting of Clause 1 in view of the points that have been raised. I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Skelmersdale for their support.
This is not only about the extent to which the Bill can be used to ring-fence the purposes currently intended; it is, in essence, what the Bill could permit which is the problem. What my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth had to say in relation to the future of our constitution should give Ministers cause to reflect on the wider totality of cases that may arise in the future.
When the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill was passing through Parliament, the then Opposition was apoplectic with rage in regard to its constitutional ramifications. It is therefore worth making the point that our response to this Bill has been measured and, dare I say, proportionate. The Bill raises serious and significant constitutional concerns. We would be remiss if we did not expose them to scrutiny.
Let me conclude my thoughts on Clause 1 for today by referring to the final report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation dated 18th December 2000. In its conclusion it stated:
"The potential gains are considerable—but so too, without stringent safeguards, would be the risks inherent in this unprecedentedly wide power".
On that basis, for today, I shall not press my objection to Clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "burden" and related expressions]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").
The noble Lord said: This clause purports to define. That being so, it should define and not merely include. The appropriate word to use is "mean". The meaning of the word "burden"—surely the most important single word in the Bill—must be accurately and clearly defined. If the word "burden" is only said to include these meanings, what else is to be included? Are we to be told—or is that to be left to the imagination? If other burdens are envisaged as falling within the ambit of the Bill, let us identify them. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree with the noble Lord that the definition of "burden" is key to the way the power in the Bill will work and to ensuring that we are able to implement important and wide-ranging reforms. I do not think that the amendment as proposed would add anything. The word "includes" has been put into Clause 2 quite deliberately. It ensures that, while the definition of "burden" given in Clause 2 gives the framework within which each order would operate, "burden" retains its natural meaning. That is

227
obviously the right way to do it. It would be wrong to impose artificial restrictions on the word. It is one that we all understand.
The word "includes" is taken from Section 1 of the 1994 Act. That is where the approach came from. Experience with that Act has shown that the safeguards are more than robust enough to prevent any abuse. There has been no difficulty in defining the meaning of "burden".
Additionally, the effect of the amendment would be to limit the removal as well as the imposition of burdens. So the scope for deregulatory measures, which is important to both sides of the House, could well be diminished. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on my response and to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister; however, I must confess that I am not happy about what he has said. For example, even if one looks at what is included in Clause 2(1), one is surprised to see that one of the definitions of "burden" is,
"preventing the incurring of expenditure".
That seems to be an unusual expression of a burden. If paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2(1) are not totally comprehensive, can the Minister give some examples of other categories of burden that might be envisaged by the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The use of the words,
"preventing the incurring of expenditure",
is to deal with the vaccine damage type case, where the regulation imposes conditions pursuant to which compensation payments can be made. An expenditure cannot be incurred unless the conditions are satisfied. That has the effect of imposing burdens on the payee. That is why the definition is included.
A very common form has been used in Clause 2(1). One deals in the definition section with matters that might otherwise cause room for doubt. The prevention of expenditure is a matter which, at first blush, would not be thought of as a burden, but once it has been explained it can be seen as such. Clarity is achieved by including such definitions.
There are many things that could be burdens that are not specifically defined: appeals mechanisms are one such example; an absolute prohibition on doing something is plainly a burden. But it would be otiose, and unwise, to try to include everything. The best bet must be to rely on the ordinary meaning of a word that people well understand.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for elaborating on his original explanation. I shall reflect on his remarks and I may return to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("only").
The noble Baroness said: I have a number of concerns about the use of the word "only" in this part of the clause. Indeed, the variety of my concerns is perhaps surprising, given that we are here concerned with a single word.
First, it will not have escaped the attention of the Committee that there appears a similar phrase in Clause 1(5)(b). Only there, the words "only" and "affects" are transposed. I do not know whether it is intended that this short phrase should carry the same meaning in each instance, but I must tell your Lordships that as a matter of correct interpretation it does not.
Where the phrase appears in Clause 1, it is permissive in its effect and removes what might otherwise have been thought to be an inhibition. It allows the imposition of a "burden" (in the technical sense) upon a Minister or government department, even though such, by reason of the definition in Clause 2, ought not to be so described.
I have no difficulty with that approach and the meaning is clear. What is not clear is the meaning to be given to the words as they appear in Clause 2. First, the definition in Clause 2 is infinitely narrower than if the words were, "does not include any burden which affects only a Minister of the Crown". That is so because, in the Bill as presently drafted, the word "only" qualifies the word "burden", and so means that not only does the burden affect "only" a Minister of the Crown, but it affects no one else and nothing else at all. I have tried to identify a burden which "only" affects a Minister and has no other effect on anyone or anything whatsoever, and I confess that I am unable to do so.
I now turn to my second point. It is possible that this intensely narrow construction is not what is intended and that, in truth, the words should be transposed. I shall assume that that is so. Perhaps I should say at this point that this is a probing amendment. But, even if it is, these words produce an exceptionally narrow exception to the definition of the word "burden". We have already heard that the word "affects" in Clause 1 is to be given as wide a meaning as possible. That being so, the words "burden which affects only a Minister of the Crown" are again productive of only the narrowest exclusion from the definition of the word "burden" in the case of a burden imposed on a Minister. There can be very few burdens indeed that affect, in the very broad sense that is intended, only the Minister.
It follows that the word "burden", as here defined, is likely to include almost any burden borne by a Minister of the Crown. The Government accept that this Bill should not be available to Ministers as a vehicle by which they may divest themselves of their responsibilities to provide essential services. The prevention of its use for that purpose is indeed the aim of this part of this clause. Unfortunately, upon careful analysis, it does not seem to me to fulfil that purpose.
I have one further concern, which is a serious one. Whatever may be the limit on the use of this Bill as a vehicle for the removal of burdens upon Ministers, there is one use that is not limited in any way, which is to relieve Ministers of the obligation to observe the requirements imposed upon them with regard to the passing of secondary legislation. I take as an example the burden placed upon a Minister by Clause 4 of this Bill to lay a draft order before each House of Parliament, as part of any regulatory reform process. That seems to me to represent a burden. It may be said that it is a burden borne solely by the Minister, and thus not susceptible of "regulatory reform", but it takes little imagination to think of a form of words that could impose such a burden on the Minister and AN Other.
Once such a burden had been jointly imposed, the Minister could make use of the power granted by this Bill to divest himself of that burden. I cannot imagine that it is the intended purpose of this Bill to permit such an activity, whatever other safeguards may be in place to prevent it. But I cannot presently see how it can be said not to be within the power that this Bill will create. The truth may be that insufficient thought has gone into the drafting of this part of the Bill. Plainly, while the aim is worthy, the result is inadequate. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to set out the justification for the drafting of the Bill on this point. As currently drafted, the Bill provides, in the tailpiece to Clause 2(1), that "burden",
"does not include any burden which only affects a Minister of the Crown or government department".
I deal immediately with the point that the word "only" is in a different place in the sentences at line 35 and line 22 on page 2. I have heard the explanation given by the noble Baroness. To follow it, I shall need to read it. It was, albeit very sophisticated, incredibly complicated. I am not suggesting that it was unclear. I accept that it is a tricky argument and that it has therefore been necessary to explain it in some detail. The placing of the word "only" does not seem to me to make any difference. The noble Baroness suggests that it does. I shall therefore take time to explore and consider the points that she has made. I appreciate that there may be validity in the point that if it appears in a difference place and it tends not to have the same meaning, it may not look right and that one may need to do something about it. That may be a valid point, which I shall consider.
I deal with the points of substance. The Bill is drafted with the tailpiece in Clause 2(1) to prevent Ministers divesting themselves of their responsibilities. Perhaps I may give an example. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport had intended to use a regulatory reform order to remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to run part of Osborne House as a convalescent home for members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service.
230
Under the Osborne Estate Act 1902, as amended by the Osborne Estate Act 1914, the Secretary of State is currently obliged to open to the public that part of Osborne House which, was occupied by Queen Victoria, and to use the remainder of the House and grounds for the benefit of members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. The lifting of the second of those obligations will enable the Secretary of State to find new uses for those parts of the house and grounds currently used as a convalescent home, for the benefit of a much wider range of people.
However, the measure cannot be effected under an RRO (a regulatory reform order) because it would remove a burden that applies only to the Secretary of State at the DCMS. He is the only person under an obligation to run Osborne House as a convalescent home for members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service. As a result, any change in his obligation must be effected by primary legislation because the obligation is created by the earlier Act to which I referred. Indeed, that is now happening. The matter is before this place at present by way of the Culture and Recreation Bill.
There are many burdens on Ministers that affect others; for example, the provisions of the Bill as drafted mean that we could enable disabled drivers to renew their vehicle excise duty licences by telephone. Although this is a great burden on 900,000 disabled motorists, it is the burden on the DVLA that currently prevents them from being able to verify entitlement by using the Benefits Agency computer. That is what prevents them from obtaining licences in that way. Therefore, it is vital that we do not restrict the provision in the way proposed by the amendment. I trust that the noble Baroness will reconsider her amendments, just as I shall seriously consider the point she made about the position of the word "only". In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his explanation, and especially for his agreement to reflect upon what I said in relation to the placement of the word "only" in the Bill. I hear what the noble and learned Lord said in relation to the substantive part of my introductory remarks. In turn, I shall reflect upon that aspect of the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment this evening.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert ("nor any burden contained within an Act of Parliament affecting the powers, privileges, tenure or responsibilities of the Crown, Her Majesty's Courts or either House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: According to the Explanatory Notes to the Bill the new order-making power is intended to be wide enough, but no wider than necessary, to deal with regulatory reform measures that the Government wish to achieve. That point is stressed more than once in the Explanatory Notes. As we discussed earlier, the Government wish to achieve

231
the removal of unnecessary burdens and, in some cases, regulatory reform in order to achieve an even playing field.
We are told that it is the Government's policy intention to direct the order-making power to the benefit of business, charities, the voluntary sector, individuals, legal persons and the wider public sector. In order to achieve that aim, they propose a wider gateway than that created by the 1994 Act. The Explanatory Notes also say that in order to ensure that the gateway is no wider than necessary to achieve reform of regulatory regimes, the gateway will be limited by two particular requirements.
The first requirement is that the reform must be carried out "with a view to" the "objects" set out in Clause 1(1)(a) to (d). Given the discussion that has already taken place on subsection (c), I am not sure how this constitutes a significant limitation.
The second requirement is that the reform must meet the policy test of "appropriateness". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, told the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that there is no precise line to be drawn between matters in respect of which it is appropriate to legislate by way of order and other matters in respect of which it would not be appropriate. He said that it would be for Ministers to decide whether or not the use of the power would be appropriate. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe has already said, he used the elephant test: you know it when you see it. I appreciate that both Chambers would be called upon to agree with the Minister that what was before them was, indeed, an elephant. However, I am not sure whether that is a particularly novel safeguard. I would have thought that the test of appropriateness applied to every single measure brought before this Chamber and another place. We have to decide whether a particular measure or procedure is appropriate, and so to subject an issue to that test may be seen as no more than a statement of the obvious. We would be entitled to wonder what sort of government we have if such a test were not applied.
The gateway is therefore not limited other than by Ministers' good intentions and good intentions have to be put alongside the observation of the comment by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in paragraph 35 of its Fifteenth Report in the last Session. I quote:
"It would be open to a future Government of a presently unknown political complexion to propose changes of potentially great significance by means of an order."
Indeed, as it notes in the concluding paragraph, the Bill could allow much of the legislative programme to be implemented by orders rather than by Bills. That is not the intention of the Government: we have assurances of that. However, those assurances are not sufficient to meet the claim. Some might regard them as necessary, but they are not sufficient to meet the claim that the order-making power is no wider than necessary to obtain the regulatory measures that the
232
Government wish to achieve. The order-making power in the Bill is much wider than is necessary to achieve the Government's ostensible purpose.
The question then arises: how can the provisions of the Bill be crafted in such a way as to limit them to those necessary, and no more than that, to achieve what the Government wish to achieve? The Minister argues that it is not possible to limit the provisions further and that we must rely on the appropriateness test. To be fair to the Minister, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has also said that it has not found a way to limit the provisions of the Bill while at the same time enabling the substantial reform of the statute book which it would facilitate. I acknowledge that.
As I said on Second Reading, it may be an impossible task but we must not let this Bill through simply on the basis that we believe it to be so. I therefore place before your Lordships an attempt to limit the Bill. It is one of two options that I believe we can pursue. The first, embodied in this amendment, is to identify what are in effect class exemptions. The term will be very familiar to the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I have sought to identify Acts covering particular aspects of our constitutional arrangements that should not, indeed must not, be changed by means of secondary legislation.
I appreciate that the amendment is not exhaustive. By that I mean two things. The first is that Acts covering other aspects of our constitutional arrangements, such as devolution, are not, but perhaps should be, included. Secondly, even if we extend the scope of my proposed amendment, it will still not include everything that should be exempt from change by secondary legislation.
This amendment is an initial attempt to limit the scope of the order-making power. I bring it forward to prompt discussion. If there is agreement that there is a move in the right direction, it may be felt that it should be extended to include other class exemptions. Another amendment could be brought forward on Report. As I concede, it will almost certainly be impossible to draw a clear line between what should and should not be excluded. In that respect, the noble and learned Lord is quite right. However, that is not an argument against putting certain areas beyond the reach of the Bill. The Minister will doubtless reiterate that the amendment covers areas that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to change through the order-making power of this Bill. In that case, I see no reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment. Furthermore, unpalatable as the truth of the assertion may be to the Minister, I would remind him that no government are in power in perpetuity. The Minister's assurances do not carry forward to a future government.
If the Minister would like an example, since we are very keen this evening on examples, I will offer one. I can think of another one, which should come straight to the minds of Ministers. The Bill as it stands could be used by a future government to achieve the purpose of the Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill introduced by

233
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. The burden imposed on this House by the Parliament Act 1949 could be removed by order. Some in your Lordships' House may well find that attractive, but I doubt if the noble and learned Lord does.
Another example has occurred to me, which I suspect will focus the minds of Ministers enormously. It occurred to me that one could use the powers of this Bill. A future Conservative government, if the Ministers were so minded and thought it was in the public interest, could undo the provisions of the House of Lords Act. It imposes a burden on excluded hereditaries. Why not get rid of that burden? As I said, it could be seen as being in the public interest. I do not believe that it is caught by any of the stipulations in the Bill; therefore, it could be done in that way. Some people may believe that that is most unlikely, but it does not have to be likely, merely to demonstrate the truth of the assertion that I am advancing.
If the approach which I have adopted in this amendment—the class exemption approach—is felt to be flawed, the second option would be to exclude from the provisions named Acts listed in a schedule to the Bill. It would be quite possible, for example, to stipulate that any Act passed before 1900 is excluded and then to list all the Acts passed in the 20th century which should also be excluded: the Parliament Acts, the Life Peerages Act, the House of Lords Act, particular Representation of the People Acts, the European Communities Act, and so on. That approach would perhaps provide more flexibility. It may be the approach that we wish to consider if the one adopted in this amendment is not acceptable.
Whichever approach is taken, we must amend the Bill in order to ensure that its provisions justify the claim that the order-making power is no greater than is necessary to achieve the Government's stated intentions. I believe that this amendment at least moves us in the right direction. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I put my name to this amendment for a very simple reason. Obviously I agree with the general tenets advanced by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. However, the real reason why I put my name to this amendment was the extraordinary comment, as I see it, in paragraph 57 on page 18 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which states:
"The remainder of subsection (1)"—
that is what the noble and learned Lord called the "addendum", or whatever, to Clause 2—
"excludes from the definition of 'burden' any burden that only affects a Minister of the Crown or government department".
We have dealt with that and understand it. However, the note goes on to say,
"This means that, while local authorities, schools, hospitals, non-departmental public bodies and other public sector bodies could be the sole beneficiaries of an order, Ministers and government departments cannot be the sole beneficiaries".
However, the problem is that local authorities, schools, hospitals, non-departmental public bodies and other public sector bodies are in the province of a
234
Minister of the Crown. I do not see why there should not be different arrangements for Ministers of the Crown to those which exist for the bodies which come under the individual Ministers of the Crown.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I too have just been reading paragraph 57 of the Explanatory Notes. I read the part which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not read out. It says that,
"while local authorities, schools, hospitals, non-departmental public bodies and other public sector bodies could be the sole beneficiaries of an order, Ministers and government departments cannot be the sole beneficiaries; someone else must … benefit".
The difference is that Ministers and government departments are involved in putting through legislation and making decisions; all the rest provide the services. It seems to me entirely appropriate that deregulation powers should apply to public sector bodies which provide services, because that benefits those for whom the services are provided. Therefore, I do not find paragraph 57 at all extraordinary.
In a sense, with this amendment we are going back over our discussions in relation to the issue of Clause 1 stand part. Clearly I did not make an adequate impression on the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I hoped that I had, but I accept that it is entirely legitimate to return to the issue of ministerial intentions and how those intentions are adequate. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has exposed the problems in relation to this issue now as he did, and as I did, when we debated Clause 1. The difficulty is in how to craft—to use his word—a test which excludes those matters which should not be included.
The defence that I used when debating Clause 1, which I repeat now, because it is fundamental to the Bill, was twofold. First, the Bill is concerned only with burdens and a large number of the constitutional matters that the noble Lord has raised could be described as burdens only by the most extreme stretch of the imagination. Secondly, the procedures and safeguards in the Bill are such as to make it unattractive to seek to choose this route in contrast to primary legislation unless there is a genuine advantage, not particularly to government but to the populace as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has acknowledged that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said that this appeared to be an impossible task. I repeat my offer and the offer made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that if anyone comes up with an adequate definition we shall listen seriously to it, but nobody has yet. It is quite clear, as the Bill confirms, that we would not and could not use the Bill for constitutional changes.
The amendment includes the Crown, the courts and Parliament, but can anyone imagine how we could make a regulatory reform order to make a change., for example, to the law of primogeniture for the Crown or to the quinquennial Act for the lifetime of a Parliament? Of course not, and that applies to more fundamental issues such as the mode of trial legislation that relates to the courts. That legislation, which came before Parliament in the past two sessions, is not a

235
suitable subject for regulatory reform orders and nobody could conceivably claim that it was. That Act would not get through the procedures provided in the Bill because it would be rejected by public consultation, by the committees and, in the end, by Parliament.
On the other hand, I am not at all expert on the Crown, not even the one that sits in the Tower of London, so I do not know what examples the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has of measures that wicked Ministers may put forward affecting the Crown, but not Ministers of the Crown. I know that there are plenty of examples of reforms of court procedures that would be suitable for regulatory reform orders. In respect of Parliament I have not heard of any examples of the kind of parliamentary legislation that the noble Lord has in mind.
I applaud the attempt. I am willing to listen to future attempts, but this amendment does not achieve anything like the purposes that it sets out to achieve.
Lord Norton of Louth: I find that a disappointing answer and I give three reasons for saying so. First, the noble Lord said that the amendment would not have the effect that I claimed because of the definition of "burdens". However, the definition of "burdens" under Clause 2(1) is enormously broad. I also draw attention to the fact that in its opening line the clause uses the word "includes". I believe that the definition is such that most legislation falls within the scope of this measure. That is the first and quite fundamental point.
The second point is that the Minister advanced examples of when it would not be appropriate to use the amendment in relation to those areas that I have mentioned. That is fine, but I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with those examples of when it could be used. To give instances of when it could not be used does not exclude the possibility of its use in relation to other aspects of the areas covered by my amendment.
My third point is, as the noble Lord rightly said, that consultation is in doubt. I have already conceded what I recognise is a serious point about parliamentary scrutiny. Consultation in the process is advisory. Of course, it has to be fed in and the Minister has to report, but that is the extent of it. If the two Houses of Parliament were in favour of the proposal, it could go through.
The Minister's response to my argument is extremely disappointing for the reason that I have just given. He referred to our clause stand part debate on Clause 1. My argument in this context is closely linked with the points that I advanced then. I have the specific problem that I have mentioned, but I also have a wider problem. The Minister said, "Yes, if anyone comes forward with a way to limit the effect, that would be fine". However, his comments make it clear—this follows on from the report by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers andDeregulation—that he does not think that there is any way to ring-fence the matter. That is extremely disappointing. That returns us to my
236
point about greater sensitivity on the part of the Government. They should say, "No, we do not think that that proposal meets the point, but we are sensitive to it and we shall further reflect on it". I concede that the Minister said, "Yes, come forward", but that is very much a reactive stance. It does not really engage with the argument about the constitution.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case, I apologise. It was certainly not my intention to suggest that it is only for the noble Lord, Lord Norton, or the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, or anyone other than the Government, to think about a test. Clearly, that issue concerns the Government—the matter will actively concern us between now and later stages of the Bill's passage.
Lord Norton of Louth: I want to pursue that extremely important point. On the Minister's first suggestion, I was not implying that he said that it is only up to others to take the approach that he described, or that only the Government could think it through. The second part of his answer involved the way in which the Government will reflect on what I regard as a very important issue. I argued that constitutionally this is an extraordinarily important Bill. I hope that the Minister will return to the Dispatch Box and go a little further than he did earlier.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I may not do so in a positive manner. The noble Lord suggested two ways of ring-fencing, the first of which involved what he called class exclusions. He will appreciate the difficulties that are associated with that. To be honest, he will appreciate the difficulties that are associated with his first attempt at class exclusions. His second approach involved ostensive exclusions. He gave the example of legislation enacted before 1900 or particular Bills. He will appreciate the difficulty with that; we all share them.
Lord Norton of Louth: The Minister has not quite assuaged me, because he did not really respond to or pick up on my second point, which I offered as an alternative. Strictly speaking, he is correct, because I was moving Amendment No. 26, rather than the alternative that I suggested. He might say, "The alternative has something to offer". There are advantages to both approaches. The Minister's point is that there are disadvantages to both. The advantage with the second approach is that it is slightly more finely honed in some respects, although it would create a substantial schedule. However, that is not in itself a conclusive argument against it, because there was an enormously long schedule to the Freedom of Information Bill, when we debated it. That is one route forward.
The Minister might say, "Yes, we are sensitive to the matter; we shall go away and think about it actively. We shall not simply be open to suggestions". If he did so, I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

237
However, without such a commitment, I should be inclined to press the amendment. I want a slightly more positive response from him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to have to respond under such pressure. Frankly, I do not mind if the noble Lord divides the Committee; that would not displease me at all. I thought that I had said that I accepted that a serious issue is involved, and that it is the Government's responsibility to pursue the matter actively between now and later stages of the Bill's passage. If that does not meet the noble Lord's wishes, he must do as he thinks fit.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful for that response. It goes somewhat further than the previous answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was not intended to.
Lord Norton of Louth: I shall do the Minister a great favour and pretend that I did not hear his last comment. His previous comment at the Dispatch Box is on the record. My concern is not with forcing a Division for the sake of it but to try to engage the Government in discourse on what I believe to be a crucial point. Prompting the Government to do that will be an achievement.
I do not care whether I do so by persuasion, by Division or whatever, but I find the Minister's previous response encouraging. It takes us forward and I look forward to further discussions between now and Report. I believe that I have pushed the Government further forward in a way which I appreciate. On the basis of the Minister's final point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Limitations on order-making power]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("if") to third ("the") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. I begin with a few words of explanation. When I saw the draft groupings this morning I noticed that Amendments Nos. 27 and 31 were grouped separately, and that seemed to be appropriate. Subsequently, the revised groupings, which had been settled without further consultation with me, grouped those amendments with others which had only a tenuous link. I therefore asked for them to be degrouped, although I am conscious that as the debate has developed a certain amount of the argument was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I apologise for failing to make clear to her my intention.
The purpose of the amendments is to remove the reference to the Minister's opinion in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3. The amendments are central to the Bill because they deal with an important feature of it. The amendments will make the test which must be satisfied objective rather than subjective. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the Minister said
238
that the amendments would lead to judges being given too much power by way of judicial review. It is said that as the clause now stands the courts can intervene if a Minister's opinion is irrational.
However, it is said that if the Minister's opinion is rational, it should be for the Minister to decide whether the order strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the person being subjected to the burden under Clause 3(2). It is also said that it is always open to either House to refuse to approve the order if it disagrees with the Minister.
I do not find that argument totally persuasive but I believe that there is some force in it. If I were satisfied that your Lordships' House would retain a power to block the orders, my reaction might be different. But one must face the shadow of the Wakeham report whose proposals the Government have shown every sign of wanting to enact. If the Wakeham proposals were adopted as they now stand, this House would have no power to block an order; indeed, it would have no power to delay it for a significant period. Any order blocked in this House could be sent back to the Commons immediately and the views of your Lordships would be overridden. As a result, a government with a working majority in the other place would be subject to no effective control by Parliament. That is why I believe that control by the judges is needed.
But there is a further and somewhat different objection to the reference in Clause 3 to the Minister's opinion. Although it does not formally so provide on the face of the legislation, the procedure requires the order to be referred to Select Committees of both Houses. In this House that would be at present the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which, if deregulation became more active, might be required to split into two separate committees. When that committee looks at a proposal for deregulation it does not consider the Minister's views on whether the draft order removes necessary protection, or whether those views are rational or irrational. The committee looks at the question itself and expresses its view. That is what happened in the previous Session with the draft order concerned with Sunday licensing. I and other members of the committee did not believe that the draft order provided necessary protection for local residents where licensed premises were situated in residential areas. As a result, the order was revised to take our views into account and a suitable arrangement was reached. Therefore, the Minister's views do not stand alone and he must persuade the Select Committee that they are correct.
If the committee believes that the draft order removes any necessary protection, or fails to strike a fair balance, the Minister must either amend the draft or risk defeat on the Motion to approve, whatever his own opinion. Therefore, the references to the Minister's opinion in Clause 3(1) and (2) do not really represent what happens on the ground. In reality the opinion of the Minister is not decisive. The position is, therefore, already more objective than that for which the Bill provides. I believe that it would only be to give effect to the true position if that fact was recognised by

239
removing the reference to the Minister's opinion. The Bill as it stands puts forward an analysis of the situation which does not represent reality, and I believe that it should.
I also believe that that has a very important impact on the question of judicial review. If the Select Committee agrees with the Minister that the order satisfies the statutory requirements it is most unlikely that a court will hold that the statutory requirements have not been satisfied, even if it looks at it on an objective basis. Conversely, if there is a division between the two it is likely that the order will not take effect. In practice one would not have a situation in which the Minister forced his own opinion on the House against the advice of the committee. There is no serious likelihood that the courts will intervene here, even if it is stated as an objective matter. Therefore, I believe that to state it as an objective test provides better constitutional protection and reflects the reality of the situation. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has an uncanny knack of firing at a vital part of a Bill and shooting it dead. It would be most unfortunate if this vital part of the Bill where reference is made to the Minister's opinion in Clause 3(1) were shot dead. For example, I believe that on the matter of determining how to strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created, it is extremely apt for a Minister to so determine, providing the Minister is adequately accountable to Parliament. At this stage of our debate I need not stress the many parliamentary scrutiny provisions.
It is not suitable that judicial review should go beyond the power to determine that the Minister's view is wholly unreasonable and perverse. If it was possible to ask the court on an objective test, such as that which the noble Lord proposes, to determine what is the fair balance and the various other matters in Clause 3(1), that would not be at all apt.
At one point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I was encouraged when he said that he was not totally persuaded by the noble and learned Lord's earlier answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. But he went on to refer to particular passages in the Wakeham report on House of Lords reform and the power of the House of Lords to reject such orders as we are discussing in the Bill. The future of the Wakeham report is speculative. The future of one or two of its paragraphs is highly speculative. Here, today, we must deal with issues as they are. It is clear from the provisions in the Bill that the Government's intentions are that there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The two amendments stand in my name also. It would be otiose for me to repeat the arguments that I made when speaking to the
240
amendments grouped with Amendment No. 19. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord says in response, regardless of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said about the Wakeham report being speculative. Its implications are real. There is every possibility that key aspects of the Wakeham report will be adopted by this House. Therefore, it is important that the noble and learned Lord responds to this particular point.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart about the Wakeham report. I do not see how the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, can rest content with a situation whereby, if my noble friend's worst fears are found to be true, an enormously powerful function in relation to secondary legislation would be removed from this House. Surely, the right course for us is to protect against what would be an unacceptable concentration of power in the House of Commons. Therefore, unless the noble and learned Lord can give us some assurance on this—that might be difficult because he is not the arbitrator of the future consideration of the report and subsequent legislation—caution is the right course.
The issue of an objective or subjective test is one that is dealt with in Amendment No. 29 standing in my name. I do not propose to speak to that amendment, but I am content to support my noble friend Lord Goodhart on his two amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not intend to repeat the arguments we have just had but will deal instead with the new points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We have already had a debate on this matter in which the burden of my argument was that this is a parliamentary procedure and that it would be wrong to involve the courts in making judgments on a basis which is not simply, "Is it irrational?" or what the right or wrong answer is in relation to necessary protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, advanced two separate arguments in addition to those already advanced. First, he said that it was appropriate for the courts to have a greater role because we do not know what will happen in relation to the Wakeham report. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I submit that that is a totally wrong approach to take in principle. We must decide on the basis of the current position what are the appropriate ways to deal with regulatory reform orders. If both Houses of Parliament take the view that it is preferable for this to be a process where Ministers form an opinion about the relevant matters and then submit that opinion, in effect, for consideration by the detailed parliamentary processes that are described, Parliament will decide whether to go ahead with the order. It will be broadly unattractive for the courts to become involved as a separate player in determining, for example, whether there are necessary protections. That is the view that we take at present.
If reform of the House of Lords came forward, which might well happen if, after an election, there was to be a second term for the Labour Government, then

241
surely the right course at that stage would be for Parliament to consider what was the appropriate course to take in relation to regulatory reform orders. The idea that we legislate against what might happen in the future, in a form we know not, at a time we know not, does not, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seem an appropriate way to deal with the matter.
For the reasons I have given I should say that it is not a good approach to bring in the courts when otherwise they would not be appropriate simply because of some possibility of the kind identified by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. That is how I deal with his first argument.
I turn to his second argument. He was tantalising in his speech because he gave me the impression, wrongly as it transpired, that but for the Wakeham point he was with us. Having suggested that that was the position, he went back to a prepared script. I am not saying that he read it, but he went back to the old mind-set before he had heard the argument. He added one point to the argument. He said that if the committee rejected the view of the Minister it would not go ahead. If, on the other hand, the committee accepted the view of the Minister then there was no prospect—assuming it to be an objective test— of the courts striking down the Minister's opinion. One has no idea whether he is right or wrong. What every Member in the Committee knows is that the courts would approach the issue in a totally different way from the way in which the deregulation committees would approach it. They would hear evidence; there would be litigants fighting out the issue. I can conceive of situations where the courts, looking at the matter through their eyes, having regard to the evidence presented to them and to the adversarial process, could easily come to a different conclusion from that reached by the Minister in his opinion and the committee, which I accept is not bound by the opinion of the Minister, which can look at the matter completely afresh.
With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think his answer that if both committee and Minister reach the same conclusion the courts may never intervene is right. The Wakeham reason is a bad reason. His second reason is based on an over-optimistic view of how the courts would operate.
I return to where we started in this debate. This is a parliamentary process and it should be for Parliament to decide whether it likes and is prepared to approve the orders and it is for Parliament to decide whether the Bill should become law.
I want to make one final point. It was not raised by the noble Lord but it is germane to this matter. The "in the opinion" approach is the one adopted by the 1994 Act. In that Act, on the question of necessary protection, which is one of the important points raised by Members of the Committee, it was decided by the Government that the appropriate course was to start the process by the opinion of the Minister on those
242
issues. That reflects the reality. It has worked well in practice. One would need a good deal of persuading that a different approach was appropriate.
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister to suggest that it was working in practice because the parameters of the 1994 Act were much more narrowly defined. That is the fundamental difference between the 1994 Act and what we are discussing today.
Lord Goodhart: I found the Minister's response disappointing. I cannot agree with him. I do not think that we can stick our heads in the sand and ignore Wakeham. It is not as if this is purely hypothetical. This concerns the report of a Royal Commission which was placed before Parliament and on which the Government have indicated they look with some favour. Whether the particular provision with which I am concerned will meet with the favour of the Government is uncertain. It is there and I do not think that we can ignore it, whatever is the appropriate weight to put on it.
On the question of necessary protection, the noble and learned Lord suggested that the Select Committee and a court would look at it in very different ways. He said that a court would hear evidence. But so may the Select Committee. The Select Committee has the power and does indeed hear evidence. We heard evidence on the Sunday licensing order. It is highly likely that, in the case of an order which aroused a great deal of public interest or possibly some controversy, the Select Committee would take evidence and would approach these questions In very much the same way as a judge would approach them. Therefore, I do not think that the arguments stand up.
However, I do not wish to divide the Committee on this occasion. We may wish to come back to the issue again, particularly in view of the support given by the Conservative Front Bench. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): In calling Amendment No. 29, I have to point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 inclusive.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 7, after ("if") insert ("it is necessary in order to achieve the objects set out in subsection (1) of section 1 and").
The noble Lord said: It may well be that the Minister will accept that he has already conceded the point that lies behind the amendment. He will recall our discussion earlier in the day—it seems a long time ago now—about whether proportionality is a precondition to the test set out in Clause 3(2). The noble and learned Lord will remember that I asked him whether the test in relation to striking a fair balance between the public

243
interest and the interest of the person affected by the burden being created was in addition to the test of proportionality. If I remember rightly, he agreed.
Proportionality is a component part of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 1(1), but not of paragraphs (a) and (d). Given that the Minister is already on record on the question of the relationship between proportionality and Clause 3(2), I seek only his agreement to go on record in relation to paragraphs (a) and (d) of Clause 1(1) to the same effect. If he is prepared to do that, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have to suspect a trap, and I think it will be better if I respond to the amendment as it is on the Marshalled List and see whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, feels that my response squares with anything that he thinks my noble and learned friend has said.
The amendment would add the "necessary" test, which we have debated in relation to Clause 1, to Clause 3(2) which currently ensures that any order creating a new burden should, in the Minister's opinion, maintain a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created.
What the amendment proposes is to make the imposition of any burden possible only if it is necessary in order to remove other burdens. This would be a major restriction on reform. In other words, it goes against the formulation in Clause 1(1)(a) to (d), which we have already debated at considerable length. What we are seeking with the Bill is the power to reform entire regulatory regimes. We have given the example of fire regulations, and there are obviously many more. It is simply not possible to do this under the narrow restriction that the amendment would impose.
The imposition of a burden, however well justified and reasonable, can rarely be linked in a simplistic way to the removal of a burden somewhere else. Overlapping and over-complex pieces of legislation do not allow such a link to be made. The amendment would impose an unnecessary straitjacket.
The safeguards already on the face of the Bill are more than stringent enough to prevent any misuse. As we have heard, every new burden must be proportionate, and every order creating a burden must maintain a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected by the burden. This is in addition to the two tests taken from the 1994 Act: the maintenance of the necessary protection and the preservation of rights and freedoms. Those are tough tests, and they have stood the test of time.
The amendment would unnecessarily limit the Bill, and it would bring no real benefits. I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for his comprehensive response to the amendment, but I do not think that the
244
amendment has the effect that he thinks it has. I do not believe that it has the effect of adding back an additional obligation in Clause 1. It simply seeks to confirm that the tests set out in Clause 1 must be met before the tests set out in Clause 3(2) are met.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot agree. The amendment would add a "necessary" test to the face of the Bill. Orders could be made only if they could be shown to be necessary to meet all the objectives of Clause 1. Of course that is significant. The amendment would imply that a burden would have to be necessary in order to remove another burden or replace an anomaly. We have made it clear all along that the four elements in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 1(1) stand on their own and cannot necessarily be linked.
If we were to accept the amendment we would be rewriting Clause 1.
Lord Kingsland: I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister for his further clarification. If I were to draft an amendment for Report reflecting what I believe my amendment was intended to achieve, and not what the noble Lord believes it was intended to do, would he give it serious consideration?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I give all the noble Lord's amendments serious consideration.
Lord Kingsland: Despite the fact that my experience of the noble Lord's treatment of my amendments has not been entirely the same as his, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 not moved.]
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("whole,") to end of line 10 and insert ("are in the public interest and that the public interest substantially outweighs the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created").
The noble Lord said: The clause as presently drafted provides that an order under Clause 1 may create a burden affecting a person in the carrying on of an activity only if the Minister is of the opinion that the provisions of the order, taken as a whole, strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the person affected by the burden being created.
I say straightaway that I appreciate this is not a free-standing provision. The interests of those affected by an order achieve some protection, as we have heard already, under subsection (1) of the clause. So an order may not remove any necessary protection; nor, as the Minister said, prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. Those are important limitations on the order-making power. We have just discussed whether they should be subject to the opinion of the Minister, but I accept that they are important and necessary limitations.
However, the reason I bring the amendment forward is that I think that there may be a case for extending the protection of those likely to be affected

245
by the order-making power. Instead of making it a simple balancing test, I believe that the public interest needs to outweigh substantially the interests of those affected by an order. I believe that that is necessary given the nature and scope of the Bill.
As we have already discussed—and as the Minister will doubtless remind us at some length—with this measure we are saying that secondary legislation may be employed to add or remove burdens. We are saying that through this order-making power criminal offences may be created, in some cases carrying a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. The use of secondary legislation in this way may be acceptable if the measure is fairly tightly drawn or has a fairly specific purpose, as with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. However, in terms of scope, the Bill is not tightly drawn. As I have already argued, the definition of a burden means that most statutes fall within its scope. Given that, the potential for persons to be affected by orders made under this Bill is vast—and I stress the word "potential". For some the effect will be beneficial; that is the point of the Bill. However, for others it may be detrimental.
Clearly I can see the force of the argument that the public interest should be put against the detrimental impact. I understand completely the reasons for the subsection. However, my argument is that, given the nature of the Bill, the interests of those affected by an order perhaps need greater protection than would be the case with primary legislation, or even with secondary legislation deriving from a clearly specified object of the parent Act.
With primary legislation, or even orders under a clearly focused Act, we are likely to have some idea of the consequences, detrimental as well as positive, that the measure may have for particular individuals. With this Bill at this time, we have no idea as to the impact—certainly not the negative impact—which it may have on certain individuals. The balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected by an order may be an extremely fine one. Those affected may have had no idea that they might be affected adversely by an order made under this measure. Given that, there is a case that the thresholds designed to protect individuals need to be higher in this Bill than is the case with other measures. Injecting the higher hurdle created by my amendment builds in a degree of protection.
If a proposed order does not satisfy this test but a Minister believes that, on balance, the public interest does outweigh the interests of those affected, it is open to the Government to introduce primary legislation. As I argued earlier, that will give the issue a much higher visibility. I appreciate that the scrutiny of orders under the Bill will be intensive, but requiring the introduction of primary legislation imposes a greater burden on government and is likely to attract far more attention than is the case with orders dealt with under the provisions of the Bill.
Given the scope of the Bill, I believe that there is a case for giving the benefit of the doubt to provisions
246
designed to protect the individual, perhaps more so than the present provisions of the Bill. As I say, I recognise that some safeguards are built into subsection (1), but my amendment goes a little further by introducing another important safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is an interesting proposal and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for attempting it. I see what he is trying to do and I am not unsympathetic. However, I should like to place his proposal in the context of Clause 3 as a whole.
Clause 3 is a series of limitations on the scope of Clause 1. Subsection (1) is about necessary protection, which we have debated—or, in the case of some of the amendments on the Marshalled List, not debated. Subsection (2) relates to the fair balance between the public interest and the interests of persons affected by the burden. That is the provision that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, seeks to strengthen. Subsection (3) goes on to limit the penalties if criminal offences are created. Subsection (4) again limits the punishment for offences that are triable either way. Subsection (5) prohibits provisions for forcible entry or compelling the giving of evidence. I think it will be generally agreed that all of these are restrictions, and in some cases severe restrictions, on what can be done in regulatory reform orders.
In this amendment, the noble Lord seeks to strengthen the "fair balance" test. The issue of providing adequate safeguards against potential future misuse of the order-making power is important. In effect, it is almost the only issue that we have debated all day. The Bill contains a wide power that is matched by tough safeguards governing the use of the power. I believe that the noble Lord, Lore Norton, recognises that. Those safeguards are robust and were created with that protection in mind.
The amendment proposes that the test of "fair balance" should be removed and that it should be replaced with a new test of "public interest". Let me first assure the Committee that the existing test of fair balance takes account of the public interest. The current position is that a new order may create new burdens only if, in the Minister's opinion, they strike a fair balance between the public interest and those affected by the imposition of the burden. The Minister must apply his mind to the public interest and may not create a new burden unless he believes that a fair balance is struck between the effects of the burden and the public interest.
I suppose that, strictly speaking, "fair balance" is neutral; it could mean that the burdens are greater than the benefits but the Minister may consider that to be a fair balance. I do not think that he would get away with that. I do not think that a common-sense interpretation would suggest that he would gel: away with it in consultation, in the committees and before Parliament. It clearly means that the fair balance must be to the benefit of the public interest.

247
The amendment seeks to strengthen that provision by adding the words "substantially outweighs". I do not think that that adds anything. What it does is to make the test a different one, so that the public interest,
"substantially outweighs the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created".
That means that we should have a quantitative test where the existing test is qualitative. It would allow a benefit for the many to override almost any detriment to the few, provided that there were few enough. I do not think that would be fair. It may be fair to impose a minor obligation on the many, even if the benefit is limited. Bearing in mind the number of parameters that must be taken into account, the existing test is a better one. It will ensure that the balance between the public interest and those affected by the new burdens is fair.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this amendment forward. However, I hope that he will not press it.
Lord Norton of Louth: I am grateful for the Minister's response. It has clarified matters, certainly in my own mind, in terms of the clause. As he rightly said, and as I conceded, there are other safeguards written in. In terms of drafting, I had certain doubts about the phraseology that I was employing. Therefore, I do not want to press the matter. In an earlier amendment, I was trying to push the Government; with this one, I was trying to give them a gentle nudge to call attention to the point. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response, which I believe meets the points that I have made. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert (", or
(c) in the case of a new criminal offence which replaces an existing offence, with any sentence greater than the maximum which could have been imposed for the existing offence").
The noble Lord said: This is a short point. The Delegated Powers Committee has always taken the view that it is inappropriate to use delegated powers to increase the maximum sentence provided in any statute. Under this Bill, it is not possible completely to avoid the creation of new offences. But it seems to me that where the offence that is created merely replaces an existing offence, and where that offence is punishable by a maximum penalty less severe than that referred to in Clause 3(3)—for instance, if the existing offence is not punishable by imprisonment at all—it would be inappropriate to use this power to enable the maximum sentence to be increased up to the limit provided in Clause 3(3). It would therefore be
248
desirable to exclude the possibility of using these powers to increase the sentences for existing offences, where these are re-enacted. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is a short but important point about criminal offences and powers under regulatory reform orders. The noble Lord's proposal would create a new safeguard in relation to any criminal offence created by an order in the place of an existing criminal offence, or offences, which that order repealed.
Although there is a superficial attraction in the noble Lord's points, his proposal does not sit easily with the type of reform proposals that this Bill will, and I believe should, be capable of delivering. The Bill is capable of achieving large-scale reforms. I return to the fire safety example. A regulatory reform order could sweep aside much of the existing legislation and create a single fire safety regime that could be understood by everyone. It would move to a common sense, risk-based approach and, in the course of doing so, would almost inevitably repeal quite a large number of criminal offences. But, in order to function effectively, the new, streamlined, risk-based regime would doubtless create new offences. It would be very difficult to compare old and new criminal offences that may deal with different sorts of mischief. A new approach would also bring with it a different sort of approach to the criminal law in relation to offences.
Similarly, we can envisage a situation in which we might want to replace a number of technical offences with civil sanctions, thus entirely sweeping away some aspects of criminality, while a part of that reform imposed a higher criminal penalty for deliberate wrongdoing. They are perfectly sensible situations, for which we believe that the existing safeguards in the Bill provide adequate protection. Those safeguards include the provision that no new criminal offence can, on indictment, be punishable with more than a two-year prison term and, on summary conviction, with no more than a level five fine or a six-month term of imprisonment. Obviously, that is an additional safeguard to all the others we have already discussed and, indeed, to all the other processes we have debated on many occasions in this place.
Although I believe it to be an important issue and one that should rightly be aired, when one considers what the Bill is trying to achieve and the protections that already exist I do not think that this would be an appropriate safeguard. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I, too, believe this to be an issue of some importance. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord acknowledged that fact. However, I can see some difficulties arising in this respect. It is probably an issue that we shall have to leave to be covered by the appropriate scrutiny of the Select Committees, and, perhaps, other bodies. In those circumstances, it is not my intention to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("(6) An order under section 1 must be followed two years later with a report to Parliament giving the actual cost of implementation compared to the original estimated cost, and if the actual cost is more than 25 per cent. higher than originally estimated, the Minister is to take the necessary steps to annul the order.").
The noble Baroness said: This is very much a probing amendment, which we have tabled in order to flag up what we believe is a real need to introduce a duty to review the workings of the orders. A regulatory assessment, to which I shall speak in regard to particular data in the Bill, and detailed proposals (such as those that will be required to be set down in relation to Clause 6) are fine as far as they go. However, can the Government foretell the future? One wonders.
Regulatory impact assessments are estimates—more accurately, "guesstimates"—and are usually compiled by civil servants, who are doing the best they can. Indeed, no more than that can be expected of them. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Hence this probing amendment in which we have allowed for a two-year period in which to assess how the order has fared. After two years, we believe that the pudding will be well and truly eaten. In which case, instead of having mere "guesstimates", as set down in the regulatory impact assessment, we shall know the true position. For example, we shall know if a mistake has been made in the order. In such a case, we believe that the Government should be mature enough to own up and accept that the original cost estimates were wrong: the grounds upon which the original decision to make an order was based were wrong because they were based upon an incorrect assessment.
However, the question is whether it is possible to draw the line at, say, a 25 per cent increase, as we propose in the amendment. We say, in the amendment, that if,
"the actual cost is more than 25 per cent higher than originally estimated, the Minister is to take the necessary steps to annul the order".
Alternatively, perhaps the Minister can offer other suggestions as to how we approach the matter and how we devise an appropriate line to be drawn whereby we say, "Well, we have introduced an order; but, after two years, it is clear that the original cost estimates were wrong. Therefore, there must be some form of review".
We suggest that there should be an opportunity for the Minister to take the necessary steps to annul the order, as set out in our amendment. This means that if the original order turns out not to be entirely wrong—indeed, it may have been good in parts—it need not be annulled without another order replacing it; in other words, the decision to make the order in the first place may have been correct, but the order could, and should, be improved upon based on new and correct information, as well as being subject to a two-year review of its workings. In such a case a new and improved order could be introduced once the Minister had taken steps to annul the old order. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment raises two issues that the Government take most seriously. I
250
am grateful for the opportunity to say something about them. First, how do we know whether or not it has worked; and, secondly, what do we do if we have got it wrong? I do not in any way regret the fact that the amendment has been put forward in this way. I realise that it is a probing amendment and I shall, no doubt, have some criticisms to make about the detail, but the issues remain important.
The amendment would require a report to be made to Parliament two years after an order came into force which would detail the actual costs of the regulatory reforms. Then it would "sunset" the order if the costs proved to be 25 per cent more than originally estimated.
Let me first talk about the issue of a report. I have to do it in the context of saying that this is a Bill about regulatory reform. It is not a backdoor route to making new legislation: it simply amends existing legislation. So in the case of fire safety, which we have gone on using because it is the easiest but there are plenty more, there are 120 statutes and as many statutory instruments. We want to make it easier for all and to move to a risk-based system.
This is a different thing from what might otherwise be done by a consolidation Bill, which does remove the different origins of legislation but does not change the effect of them. The sort of re-balancing that we would achieve in a regulatory reform order would undoubtedly mean that some people would pay less and others more, while there would be no change for some. It is not an easy exercise to estimate the cost in these cases; but, more fundamentally, on that point the amendment says nothing about the benefits that a regulatory reform order had brought. Surely the costs should be assessed in relation to the benefits delivered. For example, if we had an order in which the cost turned out to be 30 per cent higher but the benefits were 100 per cent greater than estimated, the amendment, taken literally, would mean that the order would have to be annulled. I am sure that is not the intention.
I certainly agree that we should not neglect to check these things. All departments should keep their legislation under review. That is why we have set up a panel for regulatory accountability and why we have regulatory reform Ministers in each of the main regulatory departments. And of course behind that we have my noble friend Lord Haskins, with his better regulation task force, keeping an eye on them and keeping them on their toes. I think anyone who has read his reports knows that he is no respecter of persons and certainly no respecter of Ministers or of governments.
In addition, the guidance on regulatory impact assessment says that the RIA must detail the arrangements for review. Of course this is only appropriate in certain cases. To take an example at random, how would you look at the cost of implementing the removal of the restriction that requires the publication of corn returns data in the London Gazette? Or what about an order relaxing the licensing requirements for New Year's Eve 2001? There is no sense annulling that in 2003.

251
One can see that I have difficulties about the wording of the amendment, because it will be a rare case when the order has no merit at all. Uncertainty is bad for business. It would create greater uncertainty if businesses waited with bated breath at the two-year stage to see whether the costs enabled them all to continue, and the effects of sunsetting a regulatory reform order would be to leave the statute book full of holes. Measures that had been repealed or annulled by the regulatory reform order would not be automatically reinstated and that would cause complete confusion.
I realise that the noble Baroness said that "necessary steps" could allow an order to be amended rather than annulled, and I agree entirely with that. Surely it would be better to amend an order that was not working in the way that had been intended and it is perfectly possible for a department to amend its regulatory reform order with another one under the Bill as drafted.
I do not think that we could accept the kind of uncertainty and sometimes perverse results which would arise from an amendment anything like the one we have before us. I do not accept that there is anything magical about two years or 25 per cent, or anything like it, but I do accept that it is incumbent on government to review the effectiveness of regulatory reform orders, and we have measures in place to do that. I accept that we have to bear in mind the possibility that if something is going wrong, we have to put it right. However, we have the power to do that by amendment. I hope that I can take the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, at her word when she says that this is a probing amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: Indeed, it is a probing amendment. However, I did not agree with the
252
Minister when he said that it was remiss of me not to include the word "benefit" in relation to the amendment. The costs are relative to the benefits.
There could be tremendous benefits, but benefits which no one could afford. I believe that that point should be made. In addition, as I said at the beginning, the purpose of the amendment was to flag up the need to question whether the opportunities to review the workings of the order are sufficient. Obviously I shall read with care what the Minister said on that point.
I turn to the Minister's comment that it is rare for an order to have no benefit at all. Many in the business community would say that we continue to witness regulations coming on to the statute book which have no benefit. Therefore, it may be wishful thinking to believe that none of the orders that will be passed in the future will have no benefit—or is it burden?—at all. Perhaps I am wrong in what I have said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is of course quite right that there is a difference between, for example, tax legislation—the Finance Bill—which undoubtedly imposes financial burdens on some people, and regulatory reform orders whose whole raison d'être is otherwise.
Baroness Buscombe: I believe that the Minister can see where I am coming from. This amendment was tabled purely for the purpose of probing and the need to question how we intend to review the workings of the order. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill
Tuesday, 23rd January 2001.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Finally, I should inform the Committee that, to enable the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, to participate, his personal transcriber will sit beside him for the duration of proceedings on this Bill. I hope that is acceptable to the Committee.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Education in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
SECTION 316: REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS
("—(1) Section 316 of the Education Act 1966 ("the 1996 Act"), is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), leave out "if the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are satisfied".
(3) Leave out subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I shall move Amendment No. 1, and speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which are linked together. The objective of the Bill is to provide mainstream education for all children, wherever possible. These amendments seek to block the loopholes and to prevent any abuse of the legislation.
We all know that some local education authorities abuse the provision for "efficient" education of other children and they have utilised that to exclude disabled children and SEN children from mainstream schooling. That is a very easy loophole for those local education authorities which are either ignorant or prejudiced, or those who want to avoid making special provision for these children. That attitude is very damaging to children with special educational needs and, apart from the actual exclusion, the potential for unfair exclusion hangs over parents and children. That simply cannot be right.
It is ironic that a Bill which seeks to end discrimination itself discriminates against children with SEN. In other words, it favours "other" children and excludes the child with SEN, which simply cannot be right.
The phrasing discriminates against SEN children in the sense that it implies that children with SEN are disruptive—which, of course, is absolute nonsense. It creates an unfortunate atmosphere. Rare cases hit the headlines of children making a nuisance of themselves, but they are rare and other remedies exist.
When the Minister replies, will she comment on the fact that there are non-SEN children who are unruly, abusive, bullying and arrogant? They are far more likely to be disruptive in the classroom than any number of children with SEN. What provision are the Government making to deal with them?
I recognise that the Government may claim that Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 prevent misuse and abuse. I am not really impressed by that. Let us take Clause 8 as an example. The authority only has to "have regard to guidance". Those authorities I have in mind will simply brush aside guidance. If there is no instruction, the guidance will not interest them at all. If they simply have good guidance they will say that they have had regard to that provision, but, after considering it, decided to ignore it. If the Government want this provision, they have to demonstrate that it is needed. I suspect they cannot.
Amendment No. 14 would leave out the word "other" and insert the word "or". It would be incredible if the Minister objected to Amendment No. 13, which is very reasonable, but if she is uncharacteristically unreasonable and does not accept it, Amendment No. 14 is a last-ditch fallback. I believe it is wrong to elevate "other" children above those with SEN. It is remarkable discrimination and it is totally unacceptable. The least we can do is to write on the face of the Bill that the efficient education of all children is the aim. Anything less is laughable.
I do not want my noble friend the Minister to think I prefer Amendment No. 14. I would prefer Amendment No. 13, but I tossed in Amendment No. 14 to show how reasonable I always am. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in proposing Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, partly because my Amendment No. 7 includes elements of Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

CWH 3
I wish to make it quite clear that from the Liberal Democrat Benches we have very great support for the Government's interest in the inclusion agenda. We feel there is now sufficient evidence to show that, where children with special needs and disabilities are included in mainstream schooling, it is to their advantage and to the advantage of the children in the mainstream schools. Where this can be achieved, we would very much like to see it.
There is a great deal of concern in the special educational needs community that the use of the words,
"the provision of efficient education for other children"
in the Bill might be a caveat that could be us as a general excuse for exclusion. I put forward my amendment and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, because it is important for us to have a clear view of what is meant and what the parameters are.
Various cases have been quoted, including the famous case of Nicky Crane, who was excluded from a mainstream school because he needed to have support in his classes. There are enough cases for us to be concerned that the provision is not used as a general excuse for excluding children who have special needs that may not conform to what the majority see as normal behaviour.
The Government have, to some extent, provided a definition of the caveat in the Explanatory Notes. They say that an LEA does not have to provide a mainstream place where parents do not want one. In practice, incompatibility with the efficient education of others is likely to be where pupils present severe challenging behaviour that would significantly disrupt the learning of other pupils or place their safety at risk.
That seems a fair enough definition. It clearly puts a lot of emphasis on those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, although that will be included in the code of practice, would it not be better to have it on the face of the Bill? How far do the Government see it as a definition of what is incompatible with the education of others? Could it not be taken further in this rather more specific definition that we see incorporated in the Explanatory Notes? It will, as I understand it, be in the code of practice.
I should like to take a little of the Committee's time to explain further the views from these Benches of the specific roles of special schools and mainstream education. My amendment, Amendment No. 7, talks about being in the best interests of the child. All of us recognise that there is a place both for special schools and for mainstream education. As I have made clear, the preference from these Benches is to have children included in mainstream education whenever possible.
However, these two roles are seen as being complementary to each other. In particular, we should like to see the role of special schools develop so that they become sources and centres of expertise for the system as a whole. An example that has been quoted is that of Abbot's Lea special school in Liverpool, which
CWH 4
has operated an inclusion programme with the Speke mainstream school since 1991. The two schools operate parallel timetabling; the students wear the same uniform; and one member of Abbot's Lea special school is permanently on site at Speke to offer support. The mainstream school has allocated a room as a permanent autism resource base for autistic children. In 1999, 11 children were attending Speke for between 10 and 75 per cent of their time. Examples of their successes include a girl with autism who now attends her local comprehensive, after being able to prove that she is ready to return to mainstream education on a full time basis through her success at Speke. Another former pupil attends Liverpool University, and another full time mainstream further education college.
This is precisely the way in which we should like special schools to be integrated into the system of education. It is very much the vision that we have of the way the system might develop. However, it is necessary to make clear at this point the role of special schools. One friend of mine, who has been involved as a governor of a special school for many years, told me that in some cases, in such special schools there are pupils who are slower learners. There is a tendency to think that those who are slower learners can easily be accommodated, with help, in the mainstream schools. Sometimes they cannot because they do in fact need the environment of the smaller schools in which to develop and expand themselves. There is now a tendency to put into these special schools those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, who are disturbed children. This has created great problems in some of these special schools, which are in effect for the slower learners rather than for those with emotional difficulties. One has to be very sensitive to this.
Finally—and we shall come on to this later—it is very important that, in addition to the two caveats that these two amendments seek to delete, we ensure that we include the caveat that the wishes of the child should be taken into account.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: As I put my name to Amendment No. 13 of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, perhaps I may speak now. I, too, would wish not to exclude the wishes of the parent but Amendment No. 13 simply excludes the efficient education of other children. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated, the caveats have over the years been used as an excuse by LEAS and as a smokescreen for prejudice against pupils with disabilities and/or learning difficulties. I should like to give one example to show how that can be purely from prejudice and misunderstanding. This was given to me by IPSEA, the Independent Panel of Special Education Advice. I should declare now that I am a member of that panel. The case is that of Paul Gibbs, in Suffolk, who was robbed of almost his entire secondary schooling by the caveat. The possibility of his being included in the local mainstream high school was never, in IPSEA's opinion, seriously considered until half way through what was to be his penultimate year of formal education. When he was finally

CWH 5
admitted to the school, it was immediately and readily acknowledged that there was no way in which his needs could not be met; or that the education of the other children or the efficient use of resources would be prejudiced. In short, the placement was just right for him and the staff agreed and were delighted to have him. Nevertheless, the caveats had been used for over three and a half years to rob him of his education. I welcome the fact that the Government have gone part of the way to remedying the situation by removing some of the caveats, but this one, while it remains, will, I fear, be used as a smokescreen.
Of course it is vital to protect the education of all children at school, with and without special education needs. But head teachers have very real powers already with regard to children, with and without special needs, whose behaviour prejudices or may prejudice the education of other children. They can exclude the child either on a temporary or permanent basis. Therefore the power to exclude would make the caveat redundant.
I am more worried by Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I understand the argument that it is more inclusive in that it refers to all children, but does it not put back the caveat of the need for efficient education to be provided which at one point was one of the provisos? I wonder about that.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I say at the outset that I do not wish my early comments on the Bill to be any kind of omen as regards any disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. However, I take issue with the proposition that these amendments should be agreed to.
First, there is something unacceptable about basing the rationale for the amendment on bad practice, on things that are done by local authorities and/or schools, and always citing examples of that bad practice. There will be times when the efficient education of other children will be a very real issue. To remove that provision completely and to introduce inflexibility into the Bill is unacceptable. I refer to a local education authority and/or a school which is abusing—that is the word that is used by the proposers of the measure—its position and making light of the reasons why it should not accept a child into mainstream schooling.
The informal conciliatory process that can be used to resolve any issues locally is a welcome addition to the ways in which people can challenge decisions. I would prefer to leave it at that because at least it leaves some flexibility for all kinds of situations to be taken into account. There may be undue pressure for a child, to go into mainstream education where that may not be appropriate, or there may be pressure to keep a child out of mainstream education where that may not be appropriate. The Bill refers to efficient education for other children.
I hope that no one will say that such is the status of the child with special needs—we all regard them as special, that is why we use that word—that the
CWH 6
education of other children should be in any way sacrificed. Again, it is a question of degree. As regards some of the examples we have been given, it is possible to make physical adjustments to the school; adjustments to the staffing of the school, and adjustments to the resources of the school. There needs to be better understanding and training on the part of the staff of the school to appreciate that mainstream education is appropriate for some children with special needs. But to remove the provision I am discussing and end up with what I would regard as a very inflexible situation is something that I would find difficult to support.
Lord Northbourne: I would like to declare my interests: I am the trustee of the Caldecott Community which is a special school; I am a patron of an independent school, and I was the governor of Weavers Fields School in Spitalfelds.
I reluctantly have to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. There are two reasons why this amendment is wrong. The first is that there are cases where the mainstream school is not the right solution for the child; we are going to discuss that under a subsequent amendment. The issue here is the effect that putting a child into mainstream education has on other children in that mainstream education. I believe we have to look at the issue of proportionality. I have, I hope, enormous sympathy and understanding for the children who suffer from disabilities. I can quite see that a child who is, for example, in a wheelchair can be satisfactorily integrated into a mainstream school; and it can be good for the child and good for other people in the school. However, I am particularly concerned about children with Asperger's syndrome, other forms of autism, emotional behavioural difficulties and problems like dyslexia—learning difficulties. These disabilities demand considerable additional resources if a child is to be in a mainstream school. One cannot afford to have too many children with that kind of disability in one class. Therefore, one should consider some way of piecing the Bill together so that local judgment can be used to ascertain the best interests of the child and other children. It should not simply be a diktat from the sanctuary of buildings.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord is not aware that in Swansea the education authority has dyslexia-friendly schools, which means that everyone can be integrated. A large number of people can now be integrated into the mainstream. I appreciate what he said about severe cases which will still need some special schools to act as a catchnet for those who have not been spotted and have not received help early enough. However, it is certainly possible to integrate a far greater number of people, especially those with hidden difficulties.
Lord Northbourne: I believe that I am entitled to speak again in Committee. I forgot to make the main point that I wanted to make: that the issue here is resources. Of course, certain education authorities and schools which are rich, can do the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has described. However, the reality is that in some of our inner cities today we

CWH 7
have schools that are about to go onto a four-day week: they do not have the same teacher for the whole of one term, let alone the whole of one year. It is ridiculous to suppose that those schools can have spare resources to cope with the kind of problems about which we are talking without disadvantaging their existing children.
Lord Morris of Manchester: George Bernard Shaw once apologised for writing a long letter: it was due, he said, to his not having the time to write a shorter one. So I make no apology for intervening only briefly in this debate. I do so principally to support the amendment of my good and noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, which seeks to delete lines 18 and 19 on page 1 of the Bill.
My noble friend was too modest to recall today that he was a leading player in enacting the world's first statutory provision for improving the prospects of inclusive education for disabled children. I refer to Sections 4 to 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 on access to the built environment for disabled people, including access to mainstream schooling for disabled children.
I had no more doughty an ally than my noble friend in promoting that legislation, which also includes the world's first ever legislation on autism—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred—and on dyslexia.
I gave my noble friend Lady Blackstone my warm support for the Bill at Second Reading, because it is a major further step towards inclusive education for children with disabilities. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashley improves the Bill by helping to take the process still further and I strongly support his amendment.
Lord Rix: I, too, rise to support Amendment No. 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. The current reference to the provision of sufficient education for other children is a catch-all phrase that will encompass a great many excuses. I have listed a few excuses that have arisen: a child needing a classroom assistant; a child having to leave for the next lesson a few minutes early to avoid the crowded corridors; a child with diabetes needing to eat a snack during lessons; a child with autism, anxious to answer all the teacher's questions and needing some help to let the other children in. Those are real examples that could be covered by the need to provide
"efficient education for other children",
thereby adding to the possibilities for exclusion.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I have misgivings about these amendments, so I find myself in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I suspect that she is speaking on behalf of the Government in opposing the amendments, because the Government have already gone a considerable way by removing the condition concerning public expenditure. I should also declare an interest: as the Committee probably knows, I am
CWH 8
President of the Royal London Society for the Blind, which maintains one of our country's leading blind specialist schools.
The problem here has been correctly identified by the Government in paragraph 46 of the Notes on Clauses, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred. The Government are most concerned about those pupils who present severe challenging behaviour, because they have the greatest power to disrupt the classroom, which is the real problem. A child who has quite severe physical disabilities, who is visually impaired, deaf or partially deaf, will not be targeted by that exclusion. The problems of those children can be met, provided the resources are there. It is much more difficult to deal with the problems of the emotionally disturbed child who can engage spontaneously in disruptive behaviour and disturb the class. That is what the Government are getting at. The teachers or the LEA should have discretion and judgment left to them. Anybody concerned with the administration of the education system would take that view.
We have had a brief from the National Union of Teachers. In the past I have not often agreed with everything—or indeed, with anything—that the NUT has said. However, while the NUT welcomes the thrust of the Bill, which is inclusive, the brief makes it clear that the professional judgment of teachers has to be taken into account when deciding whether educating a particular child in a mainstream school would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children. That is probably right and it would be imprudent for the Committee to support the amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I should like to comment briefly. I understand the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that the other children need to be protected, but how do we protect the needs of children with special educational needs who are unjustifiably being excluded? Or is this just an excuse? The Minister well knows that an attempt was made to sort the problem out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We went to see the Minister, Charles Clarke, who wrote to the local authorities about the issue. We are constantly trying to safeguard the interests of the children who are unjustifiably excluded. I hope that the Minister will be able to produce some positive answer even if she does not feel able to accept the amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: We have rather an interesting situation on these amendments, because everyone on this side of the room has spoken in favour of them, along with Liberal Democrats, and everyone on the other side has spoken against them. Members of the Committee will not be surprised that on this occasion I am going to take the other side's position. I am grateful for their support.

CWH 9
Amendments Nos. 1 and 13 are, in essence, driving at the same point, although they do so in slightly different ways. Both try to secure an absolute right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs, if that is what parents want.
In discussing Clause 1, it is important to recall the thinking behind the existing Section 316 of the 1996 Education Act. That provision was designed to enhance inclusion and to act as a positive force for inclusion. However, I accept that that section has all too often been used to prevent children who could benefit from being educated in a mainstream school being placed in one. Section 316 has unfortunately taken on a somewhat negative stance, which is why this Bill seeks to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs.
The Government have always taken a pragmatic approach to inclusion and, frankly, we shall go on doing so. This is in order to ensure that the interests of all children are safeguarded. We simply must guarantee that inclusion is always based on a sound foundation, but I really do not think that a dogmatic approach would work. It would alienate parents and teachers and, even worse, it could end up sacrificing the interests of all children.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 13 would secure an absolute right to a mainstream place where this is what parents want. That would mean that no consideration whatever could he given to the impact that a child's inclusion would have on the learning and indeed, from time to time, the safety of others. Even some radical supporters of inclusion accept that it is not always right to place a child in a mainstream school, because of the danger that they may present, not only to others but also to themselves. We believe that the impact on the learning of others must be considered.
For inclusion to work, there must be confidence that pupils' needs can be provided for appropriately in the mainstream, without a detrimental effect on other children. An absolute right, dependent on parental choice, could jeopardise that. It could lead to a headlong dash towards total inclusion that would undoubtedly undo much of what has been achieved up to now, through hard work and commitment. The Government want an inclusive education service to offer excellence and to offer choice, but one size does not fit all and some children need the support that special schools provide.
Perhaps I may pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said, in mentioning the briefing from the NUT. We must not ignore the concerns of teachers. After all, it is the teachers who must take up the challenge that inclusion presents. I am pleased to say that they support inclusion and want to make it work, but they know that inclusion can sometimes be far from easy. Like us, they believe that inclusion would not work if it were to jeopardise the interests of all children because of a doctrinaire position.
CWH 10
When we consulted on the Bill last year, we deliberately sought the views of children too. Some children who have statements told us that they would have preferred to attend a mainstream school, but not if that had set them up to fail. Others felt strongly that special schools were needed.
I should like to reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Darcy de Knayth, and my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we shall use the guidance that will back up the new inclusion framework to which schools and LEAs have to have regard, to underline that a mainstream place should be refused only in a very small minority of cases. Maintained schools and LEAs will only be able to argue that a child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of others if they can also show that there are no reasonable steps they can take to prevent their inclusion from having that effect. They will have to demonstrate clear evidence as to why that could not be done. The guidance will ensure that schools and LEAs cannot abuse the inclusion framework and close their doors to pupils who would benefit from a mainstream place.
In seeking to reassure the Committee that we shall not allow the inclusion framework to be abused, it is worth spending a few moments looking at the type of pupils for whom we believe inclusion may not be appropriate. In doing that, I hope I answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We believe that where it can be clearly demonstrated that a child's behaviour is so challenging that the safety of other children cannot be guaranteed, a mainstream place should not be provided. Also, where a child's behaviour significantly disrupts the learning of others, his inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of others. I am not talking here about children who have an occasional temper tantrum or outburst. Rather I am focusing on pupils who persistently and systematically disrupt the learning of other children.
Where a child has been abused and is himself an abuser, again his presence in a mainstream school would, in our view, place other children at an unacceptable risk. The only way that other children could be protected would be for that child to be chaperoned continuously. That is not inclusion. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that it is unlikely to be in anyone's interest.
Where a child's inclusion would mean, even with other support, that the teacher had to spend a greatly disproportionate amount of time with the child in relation to the rest of the class, it would be possible to demonstrate that the efficient education of others could not be safeguarded.
I remind the Committee that our proposals received broad support when we consulted on them last year when 60 per cent of those who responded on inclusion felt that we had the balance right between promoting it and safeguarding the interests of all children.

CWH 11
Our plans are also very much in line with the Disability Rights Task Force's recommendation in its report which stated that,
"in reviewing the statutory framework for inclusion, the Government should strengthen the rights of parents of children with statements of SEN to a mainstream placement, unless they want a special school and a mainstream school would not meet the needs of the child".
Our proposal to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with statements represents a significant step forward. We believe that we are striking the right balance.
I now turn to Amendment No. 14 and respond to what my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke said. The amendment seeks to alter the qualification of the second caveat: rather than the test of securing a mainstream place being that it would not be compatible with the "efficient education for other children", the test to secure a mainstream place would be that inclusion would not be compatible with the "efficient education of all children". It is my belief that such an amendment would result in fewer children with statements of special educational needs securing a place in a mainstream school, not more, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has recognised. It would end up being an anti-inclusion, not a pro-inclusion, provision.
The Government are clear that the "efficient education of other children" caveat is about looking sensibly at the impact of a particular child on the learning and safety of other children alongside whom he or she might be educated. It is the other children in the class, or perhaps in a year group, whose interests we are seeking to preserve. The interests of the child with SEN are protected by the SEN framework, including the other provisions of Section 316. That will be set out in our guidance and I have already given the Committee some examples of how the provisions would work in practice. If we were to use the word "all", the scope of children that it would be necessary to consider would be much wider. The result would be fewer children with statements of special educational needs in mainstream schools. I am sure of that.
Does the word "all" refer to all the children in a school, or perhaps all the children in an LEA, if we took it to the ultimate conclusion? The Government do not want a school to be able to refuse to admit a child in year seven simply because that child might at some point in his school career have a negative encounter with a child in year 12. The provision is about assessing the impact of a particular child on the learning and safety of his direct peers. It is not about assessing every possible interaction that a child might have with any other pupil at a school and using that as a reason for refusing admission to the child. I know that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke wants to see more children in mainstream schools and I hope that he will accept that the present wording is more likely to achieve that aim. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We do not always agree, but I strongly agree with her on this occasion that we need the kind of
CWH 12
flexibility to which she referred. In the light of what I have said, I hope my noble friend, Lord Ashley of Stoke, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: This has been an excellent debate. As we will be returning to my Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 later, and in view of the clock and the number of amendments, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Education in mainstream schools of children with special educational needs.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("who should") and insert ("whom the parents of that child wish to")
The noble Baroness said: I welcome this opportunity to go back and build on two important Acts—the Education Acts of 1996 and 1993. This is a welcome opportunity to revisit some of the measures in those Acts and to improve on them. The words in the amendment are used in Section 316 of the 1996 Act.
I am concerned that there is no reference to who should decide whether a child should be educated in a school. Most of us agree that most children should be educated in a school; there is not much between us on that. The alternative is for them to be educated at home by tutors, portage schemes or whatever else is available to enable parents to educate their children at home. Of course, the law allows for that.
In my village, a family has educated a young person with ME. Sadly, three people in the family have suffered from ME over a long period, and the child I refer to who was successfully educated at home simply could not cope with a mainstream school. It was fortunate in this case that one of the parents was a teacher who devoted much of her life during that period to the task, with help from outside, including from the local authority and from the her own school. In order for us to emphasise at the outset that the wishes of the parents—and of the child if they are old enough—are paramount, the amendment would replace the decision of someone unknown with the wish of the parents on whether their child is educated in a school. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 2 aims to strengthen the parent's right to educate their child outside the school system. All parents enjoy that right, which is protected by Section 5 of the Education Act 1996 and by the current defence framework.
The current wording of Clause 1 continues to protect that right. However, it depends on the parents providing an appropriate non-school based education. Where a child has special educational needs, such provision is sometimes very complex and far from easy. However, the Government do not feel that it is appropriate to change the existing provisions, which ensure that every child receives an appropriate education. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would accept that that is desirable. I hope she will agree that the present provisions cover what she is asking for.

CWH 13
We have reflected the existing situation in the Bill. Where a child has special educational needs, it is especially important that he or she gets an appropriate education so that he or she has the best chance in life.
I add also that school-based education may not be appropriate in a number of situations. I accept what the noble Baroness has said. However, there are examples where children may be receiving psychiatric treatment in secure accommodation. It could not be said that they should attend school, even if it is what their parents wanted. Although I am sure it is not the intention, the effect of the amendment would be to allow parents to insist on mainstream education in a situation of that kind. Therefore, the existing provisions protect the right of parents to educate a child in a non-school situation as long as that education is appropriate.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: First, the answer of the noble Baroness is helpful but I go back to the words in the Bill which states:
"This section applies to a child with special educational needs who should be educated in a school".
I take what the noble Baroness is saying, that that is not so rigid that there is no other alternative and that somewhere else in statute there is the provision that protects the right of the parent to choose not to have a child educated in mainstream. The caveat is always there. As long as it is consistent with the educational needs of the child, the right to do that is fully protected. I believe that the noble Baroness agrees with that and that an official behind her also agrees with that. If that is the case, I shall read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, after ("child,") insert ("and it is in the child's best interests,")
The noble Lord said: The Children Act established the principle of the best interests of the child. I suggest that to pass the Bill without reference to the best interests of the child would be a retrograde step. The child's interests are not necessarily reflected in the wishes of the parents, especially not in cases of, disability. Sadly, and I have had this experience a number of times, parents are unhappy about the disability of their child and they try to persuade themselves that the child has less of a disability than it has. The wishes of the parents, therefore, are not necessarily a reliable measure of the best interests of a child. The best interests of a child can be established. The principle has been accepted and has worked in relation to the Children Act.
Amendment No. 3 relates to a child with no statement. For such a child there is no option and, however unsuitable a mainstream school may be for
CWH 14
that child, to a mainstream school he must, go. The noble Baroness may say that such a child will be statemented and the answer to that is—I can only think of it in what I believe is now called estuary English—get real. The reality is that it takes up to two years to get a child statemented in some local authorities, partly because there is a shortage of psychologists, and partly because the local authorities do not want children to become statemented, because when they do, they have to pay for them to go to a special school. What happens to that child over those two years? He will sit at the back of the class, not understanding what is going on and possibly being disruptive. So my amendment would solve that problem in one shot. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It may be appropriate for me to speak next as this amendment is grouped with my Amendments Nos. 5 and 22 to 26. My Amendment No. 5 deals children with special needs but who do not have a statement. There is a point to be made here and I seek the Minister's reaction to it. Children with special needs who are not statemented should enjoy the same attention and the same consideration as to what is and what is not appropriate as those who have statements. Clearly, the child with a statement has particular needs which are more serious than the child with special needs who is not statemented. Therefore, it really is a matter of equality. It is putting all children on the same footing so that all children receive the appropriate consideration that is consistent with their educational needs, consistent with their educational needs.
An exemption from having to be educated in a mainstream school is permitted during the period a child has been admitted to a special school for the purpose of making an assessment of that child. I accept that; it is fair. However, that exception is granted only with the agreement of the local education authority, the head teacher of the mainstream school, the parent and anyone else who is authorised to give advice.
If the child has been admitted to a special school for an assessment, all concerned with that child will have agreed to such an assessment being made. That is the whole point; that can be done only by agreement. Therefore, we do not need the bureaucracy and the delay of seeking agreement from all of those people, or ascertaining whether they disagree. My amendment leaves all of that out, with the exception, of course, of the agreement of the parent. If I were being really strict about this, it would not even be necessary to include the agreement of the parent because the parent should already have agreed to the assessment at a special school. However, for the sake of anyone who thinks I am anti-parent in these matters, I have chosen to leave that in and put beyond doubt that the parents' wishes are well and truly met. The measure I oppose would be bureaucratic and would allow for the sort of delays to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just alluded in a different context. Anything that adds to

CWH 15
bureaucracy or which inhibits the progress of the assessment and getting the child back into mainstream education should be avoided.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I speak to Amendment No. 3. The term,
"the best interests of the child"
has worked extremely well in terms of the Children Act. The paramount interest in all these cases should be the best interests of the child. This applies both to those who are statemented and to those who are non-statemented. It is unfortunate that the term,
"the best interests of the child"
has not been included on the face of the Bill. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Perhaps I may begin by reiterating the Government's policy on children with special educational needs who do not have statements. We believe that these pupils can be, and are, successfully provided for within mainstream schools. Many noble Lords present have visited schools where this is done successfully.
For pupils with special educational needs but no statement the Bill simply seeks to reflect the current arrangements for maintained special schools. This has not been a contentious issue. So there can be no confusion about when a child who does not have a statement can be placed full time in a special school, we have sought to set out the exceptional circumstances on the face of this Bill. Currently they are set out within the Education (Maintained Special Schools)(England) Regulations 1999.
The circumstances are as follows: the child is being assessed for a statement; the child's circumstances have changed—in both cases the agreement of his parents, the school, LEA and, where a child is being assessed, anyone advising on the statement, is required—or the child is in hospital and is attending a special school within the hospital. We believe that these provisions are appropriate and provide sufficient flexibility to ensure—this point has been made by several noble Lords—that the interests of all pupils must be taken into account.
I should like to turn to the amendments within the group. Amendment No. 3, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would allow children without a statement of special educational needs to argue that it was not in their best interests to attend a mainstream school. Amendment No. 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would mean that children with special educational needs but without a statement of SEN should not attend a mainstream school without the agreement of parents. The role of mainstream schools in meeting a child's special educational needs is clearly set out in the current and revised code of practice. The provisions in the Bill relating to the exceptional circumstances where pupils without a statement can attend a special school reflect the existing circumstance. Maintained special schools will accept children without statements only in these circumstances. The Government are firmly of the view
CWH 16
that a child without a statement of special educational needs should go to a mainstream school except in the exceptional circumstances set out on the face of the Bill—or, of course, where his parents choose to educate him outside the maintained sector.
Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 seek to change the exceptional circumstances to which I have just referred. Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 remove the requirement for the consent of the LEA or head teacher or other professional staff. Any change can be unsettling and moving a child to a special school for the purpose of assessment would be a significant step for all concerned. Such a decision must not be taken lightly and should be reached with agreement from all those involved—the LEA, head teacher, parents and professionals—who have the child's interests in mind and who have a real contribution to make to the wellbeing of the child. Equally, we believe that following the child's assessment, decisions about his or her placement should not be taken in isolation by parents but with the agreement of all concerned.
Amendment No. 26 seeks to accommodate the wishes of the child before he is placed in a special school. This point is a recurring theme throughout the Bill and an important one, as it has implications for pupils well beyond the scope of the Bill. I can assure Members of the Committee that the revised SEN—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: A Division has been called. The Committee stands adjourned until 4.39 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.27 p.m. to 4.39 p.m.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have no doubt that the Committee will be relieved to hear that at the enforced interruption, I was in any case coming to the conclusion of my argument, having dealt with the amendments. I wanted to assure the Committee that the revised SEN code of practice, which will in due course be placed before Parliament for approval, will make clear that the views of the child should be taken into account wherever possible, including in the statutory processes for making assessment and statements.
LEAs and others will, by law, have to have regard to the guidance. We consider this to be the most appropriate way forward. Having heard my reasons and reassurances, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may say something in support of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and refer to something which has not been answered by the Minister. Why should it be part of subsection (2) that although it is not in the best interests of the child to be educated in a mainstream school, nevertheless that is what must happen? Why should this part of the legislation in relation to children not be based on the best interests of the child when all other legislation connected with children is so based? It may be an

CWH 17
exceptional circumstance but why should, under those circumstances, a child have to be educated in a place which is not in their best interests?
Lord Northbourne: That is exactly the same question that I was going to ask. It seems to me that the special educational needs code of practice will not work because this Bill says that child must go to a mainstream school.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Bill states that the Government's policy is that the child should go to a mainstream school in all circumstances except under the exceptions outlined in the Bill. That is because we appreciate the general argument that as far as possible, children with special educational needs should be included within the framework of our main schools, as part of our general policy of inclusion. We state that as a fundamental principle upon which this legislation is based.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, although I do not necessarily accept that it is always to the child's benefit. The point I wish to make in connection with my amendment, before I withdraw it, is this: there are mild forms of disability and I have particularly in mind Asperger's syndrome, of which I have knowledge in the school where I am involved. A sympathetic school can cope, depending upon the size of the school, with one or two children with Asperger's syndrome. If that number rises to eight or a dozen, then the interaction between them and the difficulties imposed on the staff begin to affect the education of both those and other children in the school.
As the Bill is written, if a particular mainstream school has applications for one, two, three, or any number of children with Asperger's syndrome, it will have to accept them. The result of this will be that if a school does well for Child A and Child B with Asperger's syndrome, people are going to hear about it and parents of other children with Asperger's syndrome will want them to go there. Thus, the school will find itself with an influx of children with that particular disability, which in itself is not to the benefit of the child, let alone of the other children in the school or of the teachers.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord did not really answer my question at all. In the circumstances where it is not in the best interests of the child that he should be at mainstream school, why are we passing legislation which forces him to be at a mainstream school? All our legislation in relation to children now provides that authorities must act in the best interests of the child. In this legislation, that is not so and here we are, forcing a local education authority to act otherwise than in the best interests of the child. I know that there can be exceptional circumstances but why are we doing this? If the noble Lord cannot answer that now, could be at least write to me?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I certainly undertake to do that, if the noble Lord thinks that the explanation I have given is unsatisfactory. We recognise that there is
CWH 18
a great deal of work to be done on this Bill but the answer to the general question—that indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—is that the local authorities will of course be charged with the responsibility of ensuring the proper education of all their children. If, therefore, the inclusion of too many children with a particular disability would tilt the balance against the effective education of the children already there, then that is covered by the provisions in the Bill. That is the basis on which we give local authorities responsibility for education in this country.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may follow up the answer given by the Minister today and the answers given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in reassuring me that there can be exceptions to mainstream education. Those provisos are a critical part of the Bill. The Bill states:
"must be educated in a mainstream school".
I believe that the aim should be consistent with the educational needs of the child. If the educational needs are met, the interests of the child are met. However, it is inconceivable that we are passing a Bill that allows for such flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said—for education to be provided which is not in the interests of the child.
Given that it is such an obvious statement, why is there such resistance to accepting an additional statement which puts beyond doubt that the provision should be in the interests of the child? That would subsume my concern about it being consistent with the educational needs of the child.
Lord Addington: Having listened to the argument, I believe that noble Lords are right. Something about the best interests of the child should be on the face of the Bill. I suggest that a small amendment would at least clarify the situation. We are arguing about inches here and that is a way to waste vast amounts of time.
If the Government can give an undertaking about the legislation we should be much happier. Having such a provision on the face of the Bill is better than having it in guidance or codes.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The issue with which we are concerned is the concept of the best interests of the child. It is a rather widely-based phrase. Within this framework, it would indicate that the child had an absolute right to a place outside the mainstream sector. It is breadth of the conflicts of the best interests of the child that causes us some difficulty.
We believe that it is in the best interests of non-statemented children to be in the mainstream school. Who would define the best interests of the child if partners are involved in the successful education of a non-statemented child? Would it be identified as one particular group, or would a range of people have that issue in hand? It is the breadth of the proposal which is unacceptable to us within the framework of the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: There may be some misunderstanding here. I wonder whether my noble

CWH 19
friend will kindly reflect on what has been said and undertake to think about the matter before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for that contribution. I recognise that there is anxiety among Members of the Committee and a desire for greater clarification. I shall indeed reflect upon it. We shall have a chance to deal with this issue subsequently.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful for that assurance. In view of the support for the idea, we shall either have to discuss it or I shall have to bring it back at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line—leave out ("educated") and insert ("registered")
The noble Baroness said: I can be brief on Amendment No. 4. It is clear that the purpose of subsection (2) is to put all non-statemented children into mainstream schools. The Bill states that the child must be educated in such a school. We have debated that and talked about the flexibility of such a system. However, that wording again excludes the possibility of the child receiving some or even most of the education in the mainstream school but also receiving specialist education commensurate with the child's learning difficulties outside that school but not necessarily at a nearby specialist school. Therefore, my amendment is within the spirit of what I believe the Government's intentions are, but by referring to "registered" instead of "education"—in other words, there would be a commitment to the child being educated at a school—the child would be registered at the parent school. That would leave open the possibility of some of the child's education being conducted elsewhere. The exemptions granted by the Government in section 316A apply only for temporary admittance to a special school. They do not cover a situation in which the child is based at one school but attends other schools for certain lessons or therapy. Some schools may also provide specialist education—not special school education, but specialist facilities—when a child moves from one school but remains registered at a parent school. The amendment would not change the substance—it says that "registered" would subsume all the other alternatives. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I would never take it upon myself to say whether the drafting of any amendment was correct. However, if the noble Baroness is right, the amendment would allow the use of other schools and the pooling of resources. It is a common practice to go to certain schools for certain specialist types of back-up help. We seem to be encouraging the old-style special schools to become places where we provide resources that allow people to spend more time in mainstream schools. If the noble Baroness has correctly spotted something here, I hope that the Government will be supportive, because the idea of
CWH 20
keeping most people within the mainstream sector for the longest amount of time may be served by using the special school sector, with its greater expertise and resources, as back-up. The noble Baroness seems to be calling for good practice to be encouraged.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I can be helpful. We know that many mainstream and special schools already work together. We have been encouraging far closer links between the two sectors as an integral part of our inclusion strategy, developing the use of dual placements, which is probably what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wants, as part of the outreach role that we want all specialist schools to play. They have an important role in helping mainstream schools to become more inclusive. They should share their expertise and knowledge for the benefit of all pupils.
The vast majority of dual placement support pupils have statements, but it may sometimes be appropriate for a child without a statement to spend some time away from his mainstream school. Again, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had that in mind. However, where a child who has special educational needs but does not have a statement is supported by a dual placement, we would expect the child to spend most of his or her time at the mainstream school. There are many examples up and down the country of a child who is registered at one school spending part of his or her time at another, often a special school. It has been very effective in helping both pupils and schools. Therefore, where it is appropriate and in the child's best interests, we certainly agree that dual placements should be used. Last September we launched an initiative with an interactive CD-ROM package called "Connecting Schools for Inclusion". It is a practical training resource so that schools and LEAs can help teachers who are interested. One of the video case studies featured in that package looks at dual placements.
I hope that noble Lords agree that it would be far from satisfactory for a parent to gain a place for a child at a mainstream school, only to find out that the school did not intend to educate the child, but proposed to send them elsewhere.
Section 317(4) of the Education Act 1996 requires maintained schools and maintained nursery schools to secure, so far as reasonably practical, that children with SEN engage in the activities of the school together with those who does not have SEN. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for her reply. Two things occur to me. One is that the need for a consolidation Act for special needs is growing almost daily. We are not just cross-fertilising with the 1993 Act and the 1996 Act but we are also cross-fertilising within this Bill. A number of amendments have proposed changes to the wording. We have been given helpful and accommodating answers. We have been told, "Do not worry. This matter can be resolved by means of some other statute or by another part of the Bill".

CWH 21
New Section 316(2) states:
"If no statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, he must be educated"—
it does not say registered—
"in a mainstream school."
The new section does not refer to the interests of the child. That does not suggest flexibility. However, in response to every amendment that has so far been proposed, the Ministers have been helpful. They have said, "Do not worry; these things can be accommodated". People in the education service will have to interpret the legalese in this statute. For goodness sake, let us have some consolidation.
I shall read what has been said about the amendment. The educational needs of children who are registered will be met in a variety of ways. Their needs may be met by an individual specialist provider or they may be met at another school or at home. There are so many ways of meeting the needs of the child. Therefore, in this context "registered" would be a more appropriate word than, "educated". The latter term seems rather ineffective to me.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, will the Minister, now or in a letter, point out which section of which Act governs the interpretation of the words
"educated in a mainstream school"
to allow that mainstream school to subcontract part of the education to a special school, or to some other institution, to make possible what the noble Baroness said would be allowed to happen?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and give him the precise section.
I should like to apologise to the Committee. The speaking notes I have been given are completely out of order and the last paragraph was complete gibberish! I was amazed that no one picked it up, but it did not relate to what I was meant to be saying. I sincerely apologise.
I wanted to give an example of where dual placements had worked. Beaumont Hill School and Technology College in Darlington—a special school—has done pioneering work in this area. The video I mentioned earlier shows how pupils can flourish by using dual placements. I reiterate what I said at the beginning; namely, we do not think that there is any reason to change primary legislation where something is already operating in exactly the way that the noble Baroness would wish. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the Government are absolutely committed to this measure and that it is already provided for.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, will the letter which she has promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, be circulated to those present because we all have a vested interest in the answers?
Baroness Blatch: Of course I shall withdraw the amendment. However, even as regards the example that the noble Baroness has given, I would say that in
CWH 22
practice the child is not being educated wholly at one school. The child is registered at one school for the purpose of having a parent institution, but nevertheless is being educated in two places. That is the particular point I am making in this amendment; namely, that the child should be registered but not necessarily educated only at one establishment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent")
The noble Baroness said: We shall return to this matter but at the moment I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking Lord Baker of Dorking moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, after ("child,") insert ("and education in a mainstream school is appropriate and can meet the needs of the child,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow the Committee to examine for the first time what constitutes appropriate education and also possibly to debate the resources that are needed in order to provide that appropriate education.
I hope that Ministers will not hide behind the argument that "appropriate education" is difficult to define, because in the speeches they made this evening, both have used the phrase "appropriate education". So it is quite clear that they must know what "appropriate education" is, if perhaps the wider world does not.
By "appropriate education" I would mean education that can be provided for a child that is appropriate to the child's needs. In his reply a moment ago, the Minister said that the Government's policy is that all children who do not have statements should be educated in mainstream schools.
First, on the question of statements, there are 150,000 children in the three constituent parts of the United Kingdom who have statements and 40 per cent of those go to special schools, either maintained by the local education authority or independent schools, one of which I am associated with. That has dropped from 50 per cent to 40 per cent over the past 20 years dropped and I think that that is regrettable. The equipment and expertise that is available in special schools is often quite difficult to replicate in mainstream schools—not impossible but difficult—and movement away from special schools over the past 20 years has been from two motives. One is that special schools are very expensive and, secondly, one wants to see more children included in rather than excluded from mainstream schools, if that is appropriate.
On the question of what is appropriate, there has been a very interesting brief from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People which cites the particular case of a child who has mild to moderate hearing loss.
That child is unlikely to be statemented. So when the parents realise that they have a child who has moderate hearing loss, they will have to go into a long learning process. The parents of the children who are statemented become very familiar indeed with what is "appropriate education". In the process of fighting for appropriate education for their children, they learn an awful lot about the specialist teaching that is required, the specialist equipment that is required for deaf children, for visually impaired children and for children with physical difficulties.
However, for the parents of children whose loss is less serious, it is a difficult learning process. For example, a parent who has such a child should be given detailed information by the local education authority. It says in the brief that they should be told of the acoustic environment in the school to which the child is going; they should be told whether there is an installed sound field system and whether induction loops are available. That is the minimum information provided for the parents by which to judge whether or not the education is appropriate. As the disability gets more serious, they will require even more information.
One knows perfectly well that there has been a major improvement in the provision of special education equipment and teaching in mainstream schools over the past 20 years. However, I believe that the Government underestimate—not wilfully and deliberately—the cost of the consequences of the Bill. To provide appropriate education for children who are not statemented in mainstream schools will be a very costly process indeed. If one examines the amount of money which is spent on special education, something like 20 per cent of the school population are deemed now to have special educational needs of one sort or another and about 2.5 per cent of children are statemented. That is a huge proportion and in some boroughs it is even higher.
I was amazed to read that, for example, in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets only six schools have fewer than 20 per cent of children registered with SEN; 24 schools have more than 20 per cent of children with SEN; 18 schools have 30 per cent or more; seven have well over 40 per cent; and one has 55 per cent of children with special educational needs. That is an area that has acute social needs. The fact that many of those children come from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds intensifies those needs, but that is an enormously high proportion. Considerable extra funding will be required to cope with that sort of situation. Even in an average LEA where the proportion is 20 per cent, a good deal more money will be needed. I know that the Government have provided more funds, but one can take an estimate. One unnamed local education authority whose figures I was sent spent £26 million—a highly significant 19.2 per cent of its annual budget of £135 million—on special educational needs. The Bill is likely to increase that requirement. The parents have to be satisfied—both those who have statemented children and those who do not—that the education is proper and appropriate.
We shall deal later with the relative lack of comparative information on what is available. I shall strongly support the Liberal Democrat amendments that we shall come to later dealing with the provision of special reports by inspectors. I have tried to find some comparative data on the provision in an LEA special school, in a private special school and in another LEA school with similar problems. Regrettably, it is almost impossible to find such a comparison.
We all want to be satisfied that when a child goes to a mainstream school, with all the advantages to be gained from that, the services, teaching support and equipment are there. I do not intend to go over the figures and examples that I gave at Second Reading, but a study conducted by the Royal National Institute for the Blind showed that, with the best will in the world, certain local education authorities had not provided the exam papers in a form that blind children could cope with. There was insufficient equipment, which is expensive. Moreover, barely six months pass without new equipment becoming available for the visually impaired or the deaf. One can see an example in this Committee of the enormously expensive equipment needed. To replicate that or similar equipment throughout several mainstream schools is going to be very expensive. It is an expense that we should meet, but it is important to be aware of what is appropriate education.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the parents more precise information on the facilities that are available for their child and to ensure that that child is allocated and sent to a particular school. Those facilities must be genuinely and properly appropriate to the needs of that child. That is highly demanding. In many cases, that requirement is met, but much more comparative information has to be provided so that parents can be satisfied that all the alternatives have been explored and that their child is going to get the best education that society can provide.
Baroness Blatch: My Amendment No. 15 is coupled with this one. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has covered all my points. He has moved on beyond the word "appropriate" and coupled with that the importance of making sure that the support is there for people when they are placed in mainstream education. These are the first of many amendments that we are likely to discuss on the issue. It has been said in informal meetings that, however well intentioned the Bill is, it is not a cheap option for any Government. Delivering the provisions properly and effectively will be costly. If we are going to raise the hopes of parents and their children who have special needs and bring about the shift that I know the Government want from special schools into mainstream, we must bear in mind and reinforce the points made by noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the strain under which many schools currently operate, with teacher shortages, four-day weeks and other difficulties.
It is one thing to put upon them an obligation which I know teachers will welcome—the noble Baroness herself has said how much the teachers want this Bill

CWH 25
to work—but it will not work if they do not have the properly support. It is important to add to Section 3 that if the statement is maintained under Section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school, unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent or the provision of efficient education for other children. But we must also add provision for the necessary support for that child.
I support my noble friend Lord Baker when he said that we must make sure that whatever the provision is, it is appropriate to the needs of the child but it should also properly support the staff who have to provide it, and also be in the interests of the children.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, a question. Does this wording not provide yet another further excuse? I fully sympathise with the intention of his amendment and that spoken to by Baroness Blatch. What worries me is that in relation to the provision of necessary support to meet the needs of the child, the education authorities may say that they cannot meet the needs of the child and that they do not have the necessary funds to provide the necessary support for the child. Does that not give them an excuse to get out of it even more than at present?
Lord Baker of Dorking: I do not think that it is an excuse. I am trying to establish a right. It is not an excuse to say, "We will shrug it off. We cannot possibly do it". I am trying to ensure that parents have the right and ultimately the child has a right—and that is the subject of the next group of amendments—to appropriate education. That is what the child's right should be. It is up to the LEA to satisfy the child and the parents that that education is appropriate. If they cannot be satisfied, that child should not be sent to the school.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has just made a very interesting speech, as indeed he did at Second Reading. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept this amendment. Without proper provision for children, that child's education will simply not proceed. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Rix about the possible objection that can be raised to the amendment. Local authorities will not put forward that kind of excuse and the provision is absolutely vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, is also right—this is dangerous for a Labour Peer—in demanding more money for the provisions. I am aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's influence, but the case is indisputable. I do not expect the Minister to give a positive, easy answer to that, but I should like my views to be recorded. I strongly support the noble Lord.
Lord Northbourne: I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, but on the condition that the provision he describes is not provided at the expense of other children.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I too support the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. It is right that we should
CWH 26
recognise that whatever is done must be appropriate and in the best interests of the child. In her response to the previous amendment, the Minister used precisely those words. I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Earlier we argued about the dangers of local authorities using excuses to exclude children, and I would hope that as the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said, this would not be used as an excuse.
He made two points. There are occasions when other forms of education are more appropriate and we must look to the best interests of the child to see what is necessary. Secondly, we also need the resources. Like the noble Lord, in my Second Reading speech I warned that the Government were not taking account of the need for necessary resources.
I point again to the Explanatory Notes where provision is made for the access arrangement under the disability part of the Bill. However, there is remarkably little in the budget to meet the SEN provisions of the Bill, which will be considerable.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may I add one point to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Everything has to be affordable and there will be a great tension here for money. The placement of a child in a mainstream school which is not supported to meet the needs of the child will impact on all the children. It involves not just the interests of the child whose needs will not be met but those of all the children. The alternative may be an even greater expense in mainstream schools. So the impact on other children may be greater if a child is placed without the appropriate support. In the interest of ensuring that the needs of all children are met, this is an important caveat.
Lord Lucas: I should like to illustrate that last point by referring to a case that I was discussing yesterday. A child with mild autism is in a mainstream school and has progressively over the past three years gone from being taught on his own for two hours to 23 hours because the teachers are not trained to deal with the child. As he has had more time on his own and less time with other pupils, he has become more disruptive and now the situation has reached a critical point and come to my notice. It is essential that we act in the best interests of the child. We must always think not that it is good automatically to be in a mainstream school, though I agree with the principle, but that it is good to be in a mainstream school which is properly equipped to deal with a child of that particular nature. It must meet his needs and make sure that he keeps up with his peers: that he does not become disruptive and emotionally damaged by always falling behind and always failing because the school is not equipped to deal with his particular circumstances.
I can see difficulties with the wording but we must make sure that in the Bill the interests of the child come first and not some principle—with which I agree—of how children should, in general, be taught.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Baker and emphasise perhaps the difficulty of human resource in our education system to meet the kind of burdens that will be placed on it by the Bill. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the financial resources which are, I submit, comparatively easy in this case. I have my doubts as to whether in the system at the moment, or indeed in training and on the horizon, there do exist enough qualified assistants and qualified teachers to meet the demands that the Bill may produce. I hope that I am wrong but I feel I should utter that as a word of warning at this stage of the proceedings.
Baroness Blackstone: We have had an interesting debate about these amendments and I am sympathetic to many of the things that have been said. However, before responding to some of them, we should remind ourselves what these amendments seek to do. They want to reinstate provisions similar to the first of the caveats of the existing Section 316 relating to the interests of the child. Our starting point in inclusion is that, with the right support—and I accept that that is a very important phrase here—nearly all children should be included in mainstream schools. We believe that the test of whether they are should be limited to what parents want and to safeguarding the interests of other children. I find it very odd that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—from what they were saying earlier they want an absolute right to inclusion—should support the amendments.
The first caveat of the existing Section 316 has often been used to refuse a mainstream place when we believe that sometimes the children would have benefited from a mainstream placement. Therefore, I must say that their support is strange.
I should add that parents are not always well placed to argue against such a judgment. We want an inclusive education system to offer genuine excellence and choice.
I understand some of the concerns that have led to the amendments being tabled. There may be worries that children's needs will not be adequately met. However, I believe that noble Lords will be reassured that by virtue of section 324 of the 1996 Act, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, LEAs will have to ensure that the special educational provision specified in a child's statement is made. That is important. Statements of SEN will set out what support an individual child needs and what support will be provided. That applies whether a child is to be educated in a special school or in the mainstream. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, was right about the need to make it clear to parents what will be available. That is what will be required of local education authorities in an SEN statement. I hope that he will accept that.
A number of speakers also referred to resources. The Government accept that extra resources will be needed to make the legislation work. Extra resources are being provided. We are supporting expenditure of £82 million from the SEN standards fund next year, up from £55 million this year. That is a substantial
CWH 28
increase and will go some way to providing the extra resources that are needed. Next year, schools in England will receive £540 million in direct grant to spend on top of the increase in the education standard spending, so a typical secondary school will receive about £60,000 a year more.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about there being benefits as well as extra costs. That is a bill that we should meet. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke referred to it being dangerous to make commitments about resources. I have to tease the noble Lord, Lord Baker. It may be particularly dangerous for a Conservative Peer to ask for a bigger commitment on resources, given that the Conservative Party has recently said that it intends to slash public expenditure, and education is not one of the areas that it wants to protect. Of course I accept that the benefits of inclusion involve higher costs, and the Government will provide the resources.
I hope that what I have said answers most of the points that have been raised. One point to which I have not responded is what constitutes "appropriate education". There is apparently no statutory definition of it. For a child with special educational needs, it will be the special educational provision suitable for his or her needs. That is enshrined in section 324 of the 1996 Act. "Suitable education" is education that prepares a child for life in modern society and enables the child to reach his full potential
Those are general statements, but what is appropriate for each child will vary greatly according to particular children's needs, so we need some flexibility. Children's individual needs as set out in their statements have to be met and will continue to be met.
Under Section 317, maintained schools—and LEAs in the case of maintained nursery schools—have to use their best endeavours to ensure that the special educational provision called for by a pupil's special educational needs is made in the school and that those needs are made known to the child's teachers. Of course, as I said earlier, parents, too, should receive a proper explanation of what can provided.
In the light of what I have said, and the fact that the decision to replace the first caveat of Section 316 is in accordance with the findings of the Disability Rights Task Force and with the great majority of those who responded to the Bill's consultation, I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that we have struck the right balance here, and that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to press the Minister on the point I put to her about there being a possible lack of human resources in the system to deal with the extra special educational needs of children who may go into mainstream education. Is the Minister confident that the system actually contains the necessary extra teachers, LSAs and so on, of sufficient quality to handle this problem? I know the Government can throw almost any amount of money they like at it, but I am putting the point that it is not just a question of money. My experience would

CWH 29
indicate that the people in the education system necessary to carry' this out simply are not there and, with the best will in the world, are unlikely to be there for a few years, whatever we do with initial teacher training.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, I am confident, and perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The noble Lord is right to say that it is human resources that count, perhaps more than any other. Sometimes a great deal of emphasis is put on capital improvements but, in the end, what really counts is that the quality of the teachers and that extra support is provided. We are making practical arrangements to ensure that the teachers involved will receive additional training. Indeed, even at the initial teacher training phase, in order to attain qualified teacher status, all student teachers must demonstrate now that they can identify pupils with SEN; know where to go in order to give positive and targeted support; and are familiar with the requirements of the code of practice. That will be an intrinsic part of all teachers' training. Those requirements will be reinforced by induction arrangements too, which specifically require new teachers to demonstrate that they can plan to meet the needs of pupils with SEN and make a contribution to individual education plans. In addition, there need to be extra resources for additional helpers, which is what the extra funding that we are providing will, at least in part, be spent on.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My objection was to the final caveat, which was a enormous loophole exploited by many local education authorities. That is not really comparable to this provision so I do not see any great inconsistency between what I said earlier, and what I said in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Baker.
Baroness Blackstone: The caveat that noble Lords want to see retained has been used to deny children mainstream places.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may continue the practice of quoting with approval from the National Union of Teachers from the Conservative Benches—long may it last! It says in its brief that:
"The union would welcome an assurance that LEAs would be expected to draft SEN statements that are precisely worded and which clearly define the additional resources and support that each child requires."
The noble Baroness said something very similar in her reply. She said that statements will be clear and precisely worded, so that it is absolutely clear what equipment and resources the school needs to provide. However, they do not do that at the moment, under the existing legislation, and I am not at all clear where, in this legislation, there is any requirement that they should be clear—or at least clear to people other than the LEA; that is, clear to the general public, to the parents, to the school and to everybody else. There is no such requirement and I have seen no draft of any such requirement. Perhaps the noble Baroness will provide us with one.
Baroness Blackstone: No, it is not necessary to state such a commonsense provision as this on the face of
CWH 30
the Bill. It will be clearly set out in the code of practice that SEN statements must be clear, readily understood, and set out exactly what is to be provided. It does not seem necessary for the Government to come up with an amendment of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Simultaneously with the production of the Bill there was a helpful letter from the Secretary of State, who changed his view about whether the provisions of the statement should be set out or whether they should be specific. Apparently that change was made and was very welcome to all concerned. However, there is a whisper in the background that when the code of practice is written, "specify" will be qualified, perhaps to "specify as appropriate". It should be unequivocal. The statement should specify.
Another point that came up again in informal meetings that we have held about the Bill is that statements often refer to what we all understand to be educational needs—reading, writing, computation and so on—but there are particular needs that relate to the education of people with specific difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to the issue of mobility and orientation for someone who has a sight impairment. That is as important an aspect of the education of a child with special needs as the issue of who teaches them to read, to write and to cope with all the other subjects in the curriculum. There should be a specific reference to the needs of the child in the statement to encompass that. Something will have to change in the code of practice, but it would be helpful to have a reassurance that the requirement will be to "specify", not to "specify as appropriate" the educational needs of the child.
Baroness Blackstone: It would be wrong for me to try to draft the code of practice here in the Committee. However, everything the Secretary of State said in his letter will naturally be followed up. I will take note of what the noble Baroness has said but the key issue is that the statements will set out the specific support that an individual child needs. We will make sure that that is clear in the code of practice.
Baroness Blatch: Although it will not be done through a statement, it is important that children with special needs who are not statemented should also have those individual needs met within the system.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I thank all those who have spoken to the amendment. I assure them that it is not a loophole or a caveat. I am trying to establish a right. Procedurally, I have to withdraw the amendment, and I shall do so, but I shall revert to them at a later stage in the Bill. I hope that when push comes to shove, I shall have the all-party support that we have had at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): If Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 8 to 17 inclusive.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("school") to end of line 19 and insert ("where it is judged in the best interests of the child and is in accordance with the ascertainable wishes of the child")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 7 deals with two issues, one of which we have already discussed at length. I do not propose to return to the issue of the best interests of the child. I wish on this occasion to speak in favour of the voice of the child being heard. That is at the heart of what we are discussing today.
The question of whether the child's voice should be heard is well set out in the current SEN code. First, there is the principle that we should consult those about whom we are making decisions. Secondly, there is the pragmatic point that we know that whatever decision we make, there will be a greater commitment to the outcome if the child or young person concerned has been consulted. That does not necessarily mean that we do what the child wants, but that the child has been involved in the process and that their views have been taken into account.
As the Bill stands it is only the parents' views that are taken into account in the process of making a decision about whether a child is in a mainstream or a special school, which is Clause 1, and also during the statutory assessment process, which is the amendment to Section 232 in the 1996 Act, and again in drawing up that statement in relation to Section 324 of the 1996 Act.
I recognise, and from these Benches we recognise, that education legislation has not traditionally taken account of the child's views and recognises the parent, and not the child, as the client or consumer of education. However, the decisions being taken under this legislation affect the child in a very similar way to decisions taken under the Children Act. There is a very direct parallel here between the point at which the child's wishes have to be taken into account under the Children Act and the points at which these amendments seek to bring the child's views into the education decision-making process.
The term "ascertaining wishes" of the child is borrowed from the Children Act 1989. Under the Children Act, when particular decisions are being made about a child's future, agencies are required to take into account the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, considered in the light of his age and understanding. The vast majority of children are able to communicate their wishes directly. The Children Act wording recognises that some creative and imaginative approaches may be needed, for example with the wishes of the very young children being discerned by observing their behaviour.
Some children, at the discretion of some of the special educational needs tribunals, have spoken up during those tribunal hearings. Disabled children do not have an absolute right to participate in and attend
CWH 32
the tribunal hearings, but, for example, 11-year old Andrew Downer was going to be forced to attend a special secondary school against his wishes, but he helped to put his own case to the tribunal and changed the opinion. Nicky Crane was also able to express his views on videotape to the tribunal, which was provided during the tribunal hearing. We feel that that is extremely important; that the children are frequently able to make their views known; and where that is the case, it is important that their views should be able to be heard.
Another point that is important is that some disabled children are not so fortunate as to have parents who support them in exercising their right to attend a mainstream school. Government have not made any provision for the situation where disabled children and parents disagree on the type of schooling and support needed. There is currently a legal duty in the Children Act for children to air their disagreements with parents through the family court proceedings, so why can that not happen where there are disagreements as regards education?
The draft code of practice makes it clear that the Government's intention is that greater account should be taken of the wishes of the child, and indeed, in speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Lord, Lord Davies, did make it quite clear that it was to be enshrined in the code of practice. From these Benches we feel that that is not good enough. We should like to see it on the face of the Bill. It is an important issue and it should be written on to the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and speak in support of my Amendments Nos. 10 and 61 to couple with her amendment. These are about the child's wishes having regard to his age and maturity. The child's views are obviously very, very important, and they are the people who know just what makes them happy.
We have had lots of briefings on all these provisions from the Special Educational Consortium and all the voluntary organisations, in my case the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. I should like to declare an interest as I will be quoting from those briefings as a president of RNID. I do not know if my noble friend knows anyone who is deaf but the RNID put forward the example of a child who may be profoundly deaf and who wants to go to a special school which has signing where he can consort with his friends and feel at home because the method of communication is the same as at home. This could be the child's wish. However, the parents may want the child to be educated in what they see as mainstream schooling. That is a kind of ideal, a kind of "normal school" in the eyes of the parents. There is, therefore, a conflict between what the child rightly wants and what the parents rightly want. Unless we ensure that the child's views are fully taken into account in the Bill, we shall get nowhere. There are pressures on the child and on the parent. I believe that the amendments I am discussing will get over this problem.

CWH 33
On the question of age and maturity, obviously the older and more mature the child, the more his views should be taken into account.
I would like to point out in closing that the United Kingdom Government are party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which lays down that the child's views should be given due weight according to age and maturity.
Baroness David: My name is to Amendments Nos. 9, 39 and 40 and I very much wish to support strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said. I raised this matter of hearing the children's voice at Second Reading, but the Minister did not make any response. So I hope today that we shall have a very full reply and a very sympathetic one. I think that it is a very important matter.
This whole group of amendments asks that the child's voice is heard when decisions are being made about school placements. The amendments include the assessment process and the review of the special educational needs statement. Similar amendments are on the Marshalled List and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has spoken to his.
My Amendment No. 9 is a probing amendment to gauge the support of the Government. I hope that, with the display of all-party support which is evidenced in Amendments No. 9, 39 and 40, the Minister will take it away and come back with a government amendment or a commitment to achieve the same end by secondary legislation.
It is currently only the parents' views that are taken into account in the process of making the decision about a mainstream or a special school during the statutory assessment and in the drawing up of a statement. These are times when decisions are being made which crucially affect the child and about which children may have strong views themselves.
The phrase,
"ascertainable wishes of the child"
is wording borrowed from the Children Act 1989, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, said. The vast majority of children will be able to communicate their views directly, but in the Children Act that wording recognises that there are other means such as watching behaviour and so on by which the views of the child may be interpreted.
The draft revised code of practice makes it clear that the Government's intention is that greater account should be taken of the views of children. I understand that this was broadly welcomed during the consultation period. The SEN tribunal proposes to take greater account of the views of children in coming to a decision on an appeal, yet in between the school stages and the appeal to a tribunal children's views drop out of the picture. The guidance in the draft revised code of practice on including pupils' views is not specifically linked or applied to the statutory stages, statutory assessment, drawing up a statement and making a decision about a mainstream or a special
CWH 34
school. These three amendments are designed to ensure that the child's views are incorporated into statutory decision making stages.
The voice of the child is often absent when decisions have to be taken in education. It seems to be a concept that is not recognised in education law but the Children Act 1989 takes note of the views of children. Before a placement is made, the authorities have to ascertain the wishes of the child. There seems no reason why this should not be the case for an educational placement, the more so when a child has special educational needs. The confidence that it can give a child when he knows that his voice is being heard and acted upon can boost his morale and it can help a young person and assist those who have to decide on the placement. The LEA and school, with the parents' support, would make a better decision. The need to listen to the voice of the child is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 12 requires states to provide the child with the opportunity to be heard in an administrative proceeding. This does not happen at the assessment and statementing stage. It can happen at the school assessment stages and it can happen at the SEN tribunal. But why is there this gap in the middle where decisions are taken about the nature of the special educational provision for a child?
A child's views could be crucial over a decision to send a child to a special school or remain in a mainstream school and maintain existing friends. That is very important but, until we find a way of ensuring that the child's voice is heard, there is always the possibility that decisions will be made in ignorance of what the child wants. I think that that is very important for the future successful education of that child. I do think that these are important amendments and I hope very much that my noble friend can give a very sympathetic answer.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: My name is down in support of Amendments Nos. 9, 39 and 40. However, the grouping has made it into a lucky dip. It is a question of which plum you pull out because they are so similar. Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, is possibly preferable because it is the only one which talks about the best interests of the child, an issue to which we have returned again inadvertently.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I believe that the child's interests and wishes should be taken into account, particularly as regards whether that child goes to a specialist school or a mainstream school. The parents could well have philosophical prejudices against one school or the other. I believe that the child should be allowed to express his view.
Children with a learning disability are perfectly capable of expressing their views if only people give them the time and space in which to do so. Unfortunately, I do not believe that that is often done. I have handed to the Minister's officials some of the stories told by people. Simone Aspis handed these to

CWH 35
me this morning. They tell some extraordinary stories of people with a learning disability having the greatest difficulty of either getting into a mainstream school or expressing their views. I hope that that is taken into consideration.
Lord Northbourne: This group of amendments is about the voice of the child. I agree with everything that has been said on the subject. As regards Amendment No. 8, I feel rather like someone who has got on the wrong train and has been carried off to Penzance when he meant to get off at Reading. There was a misunderstanding with the Public Bills Office and my amendment was intended to refer to "the best interests of the child" and not "the best wishes of the child". "Best interests" are equally as applicable to a child who is statemented as to a child who is not statemented. It seems to me that there is a drafting issue here. The Bill states at Clause 1(3)that,
"if a statement is maintained under section 324 for the child, he must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with—
(a) the wishes of his parent, or
(b) the provision of efficient education for other children."
Surely it should be the statement. If the statement requires him to be in a special school it should be mentioned. Alternatively, my best solution, the best interests of the child, would achieve the same objective.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I rise to support in particular amendment No. 10. In doing so, I have in mind the view of my friend, the admirable Simone Aspis, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has referred. Her problems as a child with special needs and her achievements since then are known to Members on both sides of the Committee.
My noble friend Lady David said that we should listen to the voice of the child. I ask the Committee today to listen, just briefly, to the voice of Simone. She states:
"It is accepted that disabled children's wishes should be taken into account when decisions are made about future family placements. Also children are able to present their evidence during criminal proceedings and listen to judicial review hearings in the High Court.
So, she asks, why should they not give,
"evidence about what school they prefer or what support they need during a special educational needs tribunal hearing."
Simone tells me that her parents forced her to attend a special school against her wishes. She hated her special school. She says:
"The education was sub-standard. There were limited opportunities for developing interests and making long-lasting friendships."
She goes on to say:
"Incidentally bullying was rife. Children bullied each other all day, every day. This is because 'Special School' children have their self-esteem knocked out of them and the only way to raise it is to bully each other."
CWH 36
She says, too, that when she asked her parents why they did not let her go to a mainstream school, they said it was because they were afraid of the professionals and the head teacher. She adds:
"Parents can be put under pressure to force their children to attend a special school."
I put it to the Committee that Simone's view is one of considerable importance to us as we consider this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment No. 10, which has my support.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I support the views of all Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendments, particularly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. It is right to take into account the views of the child. The child could be 14 years-old and perfectly capable of making a judgment. I appreciate that some children will not be able to make a rational decision, but many will. Those who are profoundly deaf or seriously visually impaired will be able to make rational decisions; so will those with physical disabilities.
I very much hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this. I am no lawyer, but through the recent changes in the human rights legislation and the various courts that exist in Europe, it is possible for a child of 14 to go to a European Court and insist that he not be caned, and for the court to uphold that. I suspect that one is only waiting for a trial case if this right is denied to children.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the views that have been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I know perfectly well that all the amendments are somewhat botched and do not quite do the job properly, but the parliamentary draftsmen will have a chance of doing their own botching and getting it right.
Some children will want to go to special schools and others will want to go to mainstream schools. Their wishes will differ enormously and it will run both ways, but their voice should be heard and taken into account.
Lord Lucas: I have an amendment in this group. I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is botched and I share his view of the other amendments. Just to take an example, none of them would help Simone, because my amendment would only give her a right to go to a special school, whereas other amendments would require her and her parents to agree in order for her to have a right to stay in a mainstream school.
I am addressing the clear principle that the child's voice should be heard. The Minister has echoed that principle, but there is no current provision to allow that to happen in this particular case. The wishes of the parents or the requirements of the provision of efficient education are considered, but there is no chink there for the wishes of the child to be taken into account. I am not sure what the right wording is, but we must find it. I very much hope that the Minister will

CWH 37
agree to bend her back to find a solution and will not leave us to make our own inadequate attempts on Report.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder if I could inject a note of caution here, speaking, as I usually do, on behalf of children who perhaps have more severe learning disabilities than others.
Of course I accept the ideal that the ascertainable wishes of the child should be respected, where possible. The question is who should ascertain the real wishes of a child who is incapable of making his or her mind known. That would apply to my own daughter, whom I think I know fairly well. She can be made to say almost anything, especially when she has been to McDonald's alone with the social worker. When she comes into the house, she says what the social worker wants her to say, but within five minutes of the social worker's departure, she is saying completely the opposite. I speak from reality, not from theory.
Likewise, Amendments Nos. 10 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, say that regard should be had for the age and maturity of the child. Of course I accept that, but I would add that the mental capacity of the child to make that decision should also be taken into account.
This is an extremely difficult area. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady David, made at Second Reading. I do not pretend that the parents are always right, but, as I shall repeat when I come to Amendment No. 11, I think they are usually right. They are usually the best people to make this sort of judgment. I would therefore be perfectly happy to support the amendments, with the caveat that they must not apply to children who really are incapable of making this sort of decision.
6.00 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: We understand and sympathise with the aim behind the amendments of giving a formal voice to the child. I have not seen the material that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has sent, which was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, from Simone Aspis, but I shall certainly look at it. However, I can tell my noble friend, Lord Ashley, that I have seen the RNID briefing.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My noble friend referred to the briefing from Simone. The briefing the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was referring to was about several cases known to Simone. I was talking about her own case, and quoting from Simone's personal experience.
Baroness Blackstone: I was aware of that and I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. We are strengthening the voice of the child in the SEN system. However, I will disappoint everyone who has spoken—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch; I absolutely agree with everything that he said—including my noble friend Lady David, who regretted that I did not say more about this at Second Reading. We do not believe that
CWH 38
the amendments are necessary. Nor do we believe that introducing new statutory requirements will help in resolving some of the very sensitive and practical issues that might arise, given the wide range and complexity of children's special educational needs.
I can assure Members of the Committee, however, that the revised code of practice will make it absolutely clear that the views of the child should be taken into account wherever possible. Sometimes it will not be possible and I am sure everyone will accept that. In taking those views into account, however, it should include in the statutory process for making assessments and statements that LEAs and others will, by law, have to have regard to the guidance. That seems to us the most appropriate way forward, rather than trying to draft an amendment to put on the face of the Bill. I am grateful for the fact that noble Lords have accepted that some of these amendments are "botched". They are; but it points to the great difficulty we should have in finding an appropriate amendment here that would not create more problems than we can resolve through using the code of practice. Indeed, an entire chapter in the draft revised code of practice underlines the importance attached to ensuring that the child's wishes are listened to and taken account of. It provides guidance in involving pupils in the assessment and decision-making processes. It stresses that pupils' participation should start in the early years, so that all children are actively involved at an appropriate level in discussions about their education.
Schools and LEAs must have regard to this guidance. The SEN tribunal will consider whether LEAs have complied with the provisions of the code when they hear appeals from parents. LEAs which disregard the guidance will have to face the consequences of doing so and account for their reasons. In addition, the new SEN tribunal regulations, which are to be laid before Parliament shortly, will entitle the child to attend the hearing of an appeal and to give evidence. Thus, they will be involved in the appeal process too. We have consulted widely on these proposals and have received broad and strong support for them. The current regulations do not expressly entitle a child to attend hearings or to give evidence so we are moving forward substantially here.
If we were to accept Amendment No. 7, it would mean that there was no statutory requirement to take parents' wishes into account when deciding whether a child with a statement should be placed in mainstream education and it is felt that parents should have a say in where their child is educated. Perhaps that was not intended in the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lady Sharp. She was very honest in stating that were we to accept such an amendment, we should have quite a new principle in educational legislation. We do not take into account the views and wishes of children when deciding, in disputed cases, about allocation of secondary school places. This would be a dramatic change to existing educational legislation. The amendment would also mean that LEAs would not specifically be obliged to consider the

CWH 39
impact that a child's inclusion would have on the learning and safety of others. Again, the impact of that must be considered.
Members of the Committee will know that the key objective of the Government in promoting inclusion is to safeguard the interests of all children and the amendment would jeopardise that. We have already discussed the fact that for inclusion to work, there must be confidence that pupils' needs can be provided for appropriately in the mainstream without a detrimental effect on other children.
I should like to pick up on one final set of issues. My noble friend Lady David raised the matter of human rights. I repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate. This Bill is compatible with Protocol 1, Article 2, of the Human Rights Act, which deals with the right to education. There is no requirement under this article to allow them to determine the provision that should be made for their education.
Furthermore, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the relevant article when considering a child's rights to bring a claim and be heard before the tribunal, applies only to claims where people's civil rights and obligations are at issue, which does not include educational rights which fall squarely in the domain of public law.
Turning to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which my noble friend also mentioned, we believe that the changes to the SEN framework, of which the Bill forms a part, will ensure that the framework fully complies with the convention. The convention is relevant in two ways. First, Article 3 provides that in all actions taken concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. We believe that the provisions made to meet the needs of children with SEN in legislation and associated guidance fulfil this requirement. The entire purpose of the SEN framework is to ensure that children are given the additional help they need.
Secondly, Article 12 provides that children who are capable of forming their own views shall have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them, with their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity. It requires children to be given the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting them, either directly or through a representative or other body. We will ensure that these requirements are met by the changes to the SENT regulations and code of practice that we propose. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will accept that there is no conflict with human rights provisions.
In the light of everything that I have said and the strong reassurance that I have given on what we intend to do in the revised code in this respect, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, may I make an inquiry? At the outset of her response, the Minister said that she could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and that his was the only
CWH 40
statement which seemed to make sense: that possibly the wishes of a learning disabled child would not be taken into consideration and certainly not those of a severely learning disabled child. Is the Minister saying that that recommendation, which I find totally unacceptable, will go into the code of practice and guidelines? I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that I am not speaking from theory.
Baroness Blackstone: No. I should elaborate on what I meant. I am not saying that that should go into the code of practice. What I am saying, however, is that there are very difficult and sensitive issues involved where parents and children may end up in conflict. In any hierarchy of rights here, I believe that the parents have to have precedence, although, of course, it is an obligation for local education authorities to look at the best interests of the child and to take into account the child's views as well as those of the parents. However, we strongly adhere to the view that the parents' views would have to have precedence in any hierarchy of interests that are reflected here.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Before the Minister sits down, what is the sanction if the code of practice is completely ignored?
Baroness Blackstone: In the end a parent can make a complaint to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State can then intervene; that is the final sanction here.
Baroness Blatch: Could I ask a question? One of the issues that concerns quite a lot of us is that we are discussing the Bill in a vacuum. We do not have even a draft code of practice. Is there any idea when we are likely to see it? Are we likely to see it before the passage of the Bill through this House? By the time the Bill reaches the Commons will there be a code of practice to be considered alongside some of the measures in the Bill? The Minister will rightly say that many of the issues will be matters for the code of practice. We shall need some reassurance that we shall have some notion about what the code of practice will say.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall not be as helpful as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would like. We are not able to provide a final version of the revised code until the Bill has been passed because the code has to be subject to the framework that the Bill provides. The final form of the SEN code of practice will be brought to Parliament under the affirmative procedure after the Bill has gone through. There will then be an opportunity to debate some of these issues again. Meanwhile, noble Lords have all seen the draft code of practice that went out for consultation.
Baroness Blatch: Could I come back on that point? I do not criticise the Minister, because we are in the hands of those who will be drafting the code of practice. However, if we are not to see it at all, and if it is to be drafted after the passing of this Bill, we shall want to ensure that certain aspects will appear in it. Those issues may have to be put on the face of the Bill,

CWH 41
so that we have an assurance ahead of the issuing of the code of practice that they will be dealt with and properly addressed in the code. We will try to be modest in the number of demands that we make ahead of the code of practice, but some issues are so important that some indication in the Bill that they will be included in the code of practice will be necessary.
Baroness Blackstone: We will look at each issue as it arises. Where we can be receptive, we will do our best to be so.
Lord Lucas: How will Section 1(3) work? Suppose a 14 year-old girl is adamant that she wants to stay in mainstream school, and her parent is adamant that she shall go to a special school. What opportunity will that girl have to voice her opinion, and what could anyone do about it anyway—even if she was in the right?
Baroness Blackstone: It is very important that a sensible final decision is made on the basis of all the particular needs of that child. Obviously, I cannot give an answer to the question the noble Lord poses, because I do not know what the particular issues might be in any hypothetical case. It is important that we hear the child's views, although they cannot automatically prevail. Many of us here have been parents and we know that our children do not always get it right. It would be very foolish to come out with an absolute commitment to accept the child's views. The noble Lord believes that the child's view should be taken into account, and those who are making a considered decision should do so on the basis of the best interests of the child.
Lord Lucas: Yes, but under Clause 1(3)the only people who have any voice are the parents. If the parents say, "to a special school you go", and refuse to listen to the child, that child has no one to turn to and the parents' wishes will prevail. Is that not the way that the clause works? There is no provision for hearing a child's views and there is no provision for anyone else to be involved in the decision-making process. The parent says it shall be so, and it shall be so. The noble Baroness has said some admirable things about the position of the child in other aspects of the Bill. Why is this to be the one part where the child has no voice?
Baroness Blackstone: I do not want to repeat what I have already said. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already had the answers. I have made it clear that we are setting out in guidance in the code of practice that the child's views should be taken into account. In our view, it is not necessary to put that on the face of the Bill. Were we to do so, we could find ourselves in unnecessary conflict that could lead to protracted court cases in which children are set against their parents.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Had the code of practice that my noble friend envisages existed at the time, would it have brought any solace to Simone Aspis, whose case I have described in some detail?
Baroness Blackstone: It is very difficult for me to respond to my noble friend one way or the other,
CWH 42
because I do not know enough about the particular case. I would have to look at all the documents—I have not seen any of them. It is wrong for Ministers in these circumstances to give a categorical answer, saying yes or no, without being sufficiently familiar with the issues that case raises.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to thank the Minister for her remarks in reply to what I had to say. I do hope it will be clear when we come to read Hansard that I was speaking purely on behalf of children with severe learning disabilities and in that respect I hope what I had to say was not too disappointing to the movers of this group of amendments.
Before finishing, I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I offer him an unqualified apology if he thinks I was accusing him of speaking from the vacuum of theory because I know perfectly well that, like me, he is the father of a child with severe learning disabilities, and I know that he has been through much of the experience that I have and indeed, for a longer period of time. It may not be that we always agree on the solutions, but I would certainly not wish to offend the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in this regard. That concludes my remarks.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rix: I do not know what the protocol is on this occasion, but the apology of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which was very gracious, is accepted. Thank you.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in support of at least part of my amendment. I did differentiate in putting it forward as to the part that was applicable to the batch of amendments concerned with the wishes of the child.
I reflect the views of many noble Lords in saying that I am disappointed in the Minister's response. We now have a Human Rights Act and it is about time that the United Kingdom endorsed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which establishes the principle that the child's voice should be heard.
I am delighted that we now have a full chapter on the matter in the draft code of practice. However, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It is most unfortunate that while we are trying to make sense of this Bill we do not see that draft code of practice. At the end of the day the implementation of the Bill depends entirely upon the code of practice.
Baroness Blackstone: Members of the Committee have already seen the draft code of practice; it has been out for some time. I can supply a copy to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, if she would like one.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I meant to say we know that changes have been made to the draft code of practice. In particular a very important change was announced just before Second Reading. Therefore, we

CWH 43
know that as a result of consultation the code of practice is being changed. We do not quite know what it will contain.
I reiterate the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made. This is a minor amendment. We do not seek to make the voice of the child paramount; we seek to make the voice of the child heard—where it is ascertainable—among the other considerations that are taken into account.
I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. There is a balance to be drawn. But as we know well, unless there is on the face of the Bill some mention of this factor, it can be ignored. When other considerations are at stake, such as those of parents and resources, the voice of the child is lost.
I accept that we have had a response from the Minister. I shall withdraw the amendment, but we shall undoubtedly return to it later in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 17, after ("parent") insert ("which shall normally prevail")
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should apologise for not having been able to take part in your Lordships' Second Reading on 19th December. If I had been able to do so, I would have welcomed the Bill's good intentions but would have joined those of your Lordships who feared that the human and financial resources available to see those intentions succeed may simply not be adequate.
I would also have joined noble Lords who fear that the Bill may move the agenda too far in favour of inclusion to the detriment of special schools and of those children who should be educated in them. I am, of course, encouraged by the words of the Minister, particularly in her winding-up speech at cols. 705 and 706, when she sought to lay this fear to rest.
The Minister and the Committee will be aware that I have an interest to declare and that I am the father of a child with severe learning disabilities, or mental handicap, as many of us still prefer to call it. That child is now 20. She has, therefore, just been through the school system and it is that experience and the experience of many other families with similar children, which lead me to table this amendment today.
I suppose that the main inspiration of this Bill must be that there are many parents of SEN children who want their children to have a mainstream place but who are denied it by their LEAs. That is fair enough and, as I hope I have made clear, I respect that aim.
However, I come at the problem from the other end of the spectrum and speak on behalf of all those parents with SEN children who know that a mainstream place would be wrong for their child and
CWH 44
who therefore want their child to go to a special school but who are either denied that entirely or have to go through so many contortions and hoops with their LEA to achieve it that the process leaves them exhausted. I should perhaps emphasise that I speak particularly on behalf of parents whose children have a severe mental handicap, or at least the more severe mental handicaps.
It seems to me that this Bill enshrines in law the wishes of those parents who want a mainstream place but it does little on its face for those who want a special school. I say that because the present wording of Section 316 of the 1996 Education Act contains much the same wording in this respect as the revised wording under the present Bill. The present Act provides that,
"the child is educated in a school which is not a special school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parents."
This Bill says that,
"the child must be educated in a mainstream school unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent."
So the same formula is being used, "unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent", and it is a formula which has too often not met the needs of parents who want their children to go to a special school. That is so under the present Act and the present wording, which is not changed in this respect. There can be no doubt that the general thrust of this Bill is towards more mainstream schooling and therefore towards less special school schooling. So I submit that without some amendment along the lines of the one I have tabled, without some strengthening of the power of parents, this Bill will indeed have the effect of making it even more difficult for SEN children to go to special schools when that is what their parents want and when it would be in their interests to do so.
I do not pretend that the amendment's wording is perfect and it may even be that it or something like it would be more appropriate in that part of the Bill which deals with the SEN tribunals. There are very many cases which I could put before the Committee where the LEA has refused a special school place in those circumstances. In my own daughter's case, she was fully supported through school in an independent special residential school but the problem arose when she turned 19. Everyone who knew her well agreed that she needed to stay in a sheltered, residential setting but when our application to the Further Education Funding Council was duly made, it was torpedoed behind our back by a single social worker—known as a transition care manager—who had unshakeable ideological views about the benefits of inclusion at any price but who scarcely knew my daughter at all. I should add that my own daughter's handicap is such that she really cannot contribute helpfully to the decision as to where she should go to school.
We were fortunate, not only because we could argue our case with the FEFC perhaps better than many parents, but especially because we could afford to pay for an expensive independent assessment of our daughter's needs. That assessment eventually persuaded the FEFC to fund her place in the college of our choice against the advice of her social worker.
I should, of course, record my gratitude for that. The point is that most parents don't have the financial and other resources to fight that sort of battle.
I know my experience falls outside the strict scope of the Bill, but there are far too many cases where LEAs and social services have pursued an agenda of inclusion against parental wishes and the best interests of the children, particularly those with more severe mental disabilities or handicaps. I do not say that parents are always right, but they are usually right. They are most likely to understand their children best and to know what is in their real interests, so parents should be given the benefit of any doubt.
The Bill acknowledges that position for parents who want a mainstream place for their child. Amendment No. 11, or something like it, would do the same for those parents who want a place in a special school. It would also ensure that the Government's most general and laudable commitment to parental choice was fully reflected. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I strongly support the spirit of my noble friend's amendment. I also very much regret that I was not able to take part in the Second Reading debate, as I very much wanted to do. I declare an interest as the father of an eight year-old autistic and dispraxic daughter—I have a lot in common with my noble friend on that point. My wife is also suffering high levels of stress trying to do the best for her child's education.
Many parents feel that the system is loaded against there, and far too often their wishes do not prevail. I have received a number of letters on this point, as I am sure have other noble Lords. Many people working in the LEA sector are well-meaning, knowledgeable and helpful, but I fear that many others are not. Too many case workers and other LEA personnel are inflexible, unavailable and talk down to parents in a most insensitive way. As one parent said to me, the three most important words in their LEA vocabulary are no, no, no. I very much hope that the Minister takes on board the spirit of my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, I certainly take on board the spirit of what lies behind this amendment, which seeks to clarify the weight that is attached to parental wishes in deciding whether a child receives a mainstream place—although the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, went a little beyond that.
I want to reassure both noble Lords that the wishes of parents are very important and are always going to be taken into account. As I said when we were discussing the previous amendment, where a parent wants a mainstream place for their child we should do all that we can to provide one. The new code of practice will underline the need to involve parents more throughout the process of the child's education.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was particularly concerned about the claim that has been made by some people that the Bill will make it harder for parents to get a special school place for their child. That is not true. We want an inclusive education service to offer
CWH 46
excellence and choice and we recognise that some children need the support that special schools provide. We see no reason why the Bill should result in any diminution of that choice or any reduction in the number of special schools.
I categorically assure noble Lords that the existing right of a parent whose child has a statement to make a positive choice and express a preference for a special school place will be fully maintained. It is important that LEAs listen to what parents want and where a parent wants a special school place and an LEA refuses it, parents can appeal to the SEN tribunal. The new informal arrangements provided under Clause 3, which we have not yet reached, for preventing and solving disputes I believe will help to ensure that a solution that is acceptable to all sides is reached amicably and rather more quickly than sometimes happens.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I shall not go into the issues about further education which are not relevant to this part of the Bill, but I am delighted that in the end he was able to obtain the support for his daughter that he wanted in an FE college.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I confess to being rather confused, although I am sure the problem is mine. When we were discussing the last amendment, I was abusing the Bill for not giving the child the right of audience in Clause 1(3). However, the Minister has just said effectively that the child does have a right of audience because the LEA can say, "No, this child will not go to a special school because we have been looking at this child and she does not want to and we think she is right". The matter then goes to the tribunal. If that is right, my problems with the previous amendment were entirely misconceived. I am sure that the Minister thinks that they were anyway, but I would think that. I should be much comforted if the Minister will confirm that I am right.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is saying. In the discussion on the previous amendment I understood that he wanted something put on the face of the Bill. After all, that is what most of the amendments were proposing. I said that we would make it absolutely clear in the code of practice that the child's view will be heard. If that gives him the reassurance that he wanted, I am delighted.
Lord Lucas: Yes. What I did not understand was that the right to express a view to the local authority and the local authority's duty to take it into account would act on Clause 1(3). What the noble Baroness is now making clear is that the local authority can refuse a parental request for a child to go to a special school, against all the parents' wishes, and that in that process there is a mechanism for the child's voice to be heard.

CWH 47
It makes it a more general problem of how the child's voice should be heard rather than one specifically relating to Clause 1(3).
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor and to the Minister for her remarks. I believe I could sum up her remarks by saying that the Bill will not make the position of parents of mentally-handicapped children who wish their child to go to a special school any worse than it is at the moment. The purpose of the amendment was to improve slightly the position of those parents. In what she said about the SEN tribunal working more quickly, she may have gone some way towards that.
I shall study what she has said with care and read it against the words in the Bill. I may need to come back on Report, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): In calling Amendment No. 13, I should point out that if this were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 14 owing to pre-emption.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) If subsection (3)(a) or (b) above apply to a child, he shall be educated at a school which is not a mainstream school.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27. Both are probing amendments to help me and, I hope, the Committee understand better exactly what happens when the provisions of the Bill are triggered. It is not clear to me what happens if subsections (3)(a) or (3)(b) apply. There is no longer a compulsion to go to a maintained school, but it is not clear that there is a fallback arrangement for the child. I do not believe that the drafting of the amendment is right, but I cannot understand how a kid will be caught if they fall into that patch of the Bill.
Likewise I do not understand what is going on in subsection (4) on page 2, which is why I tabled Amendment No. 27 to take it out. That is merely an opportunity for the Minister to tell me what that provision does so that I may better understand whether I agree that it should do it. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I shall speak to Amendment No. 20, which is in this group. New Section 316A of the 1996 Act appears to preclude the possibility of an education authority purchasing educational services from a school in the private or voluntary sector. Sometimes a child with a disability may best be helped and educated by attending an independent school—for example, if it had special expertise, facilities or experience with a particular disability, or if the child needed an intimate family atmosphere, smaller classes or perhaps boarding facilities.
CWH 48
Of course, the cost of such a school would be higher than the cost of educating that child in a maintained mainstream day school. On the other hand, it is likely to be a lot less than the cost of maintaining that same child in a maintained boarding school. Surely, the Bill should leave open the possibility that there may sometimes be circumstances in which a purchase of education from the private or voluntary sector would be in the best interests of the child and, at the same time, cost less to the LEA. The amendment would leave that option open.
Baroness Blatch: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We need the flexibility to look right across the education sector, covering private and state provision, to allow the greatest possible flexibility for meeting the needs of the child. Some choices ultimately cost very dearly. We know that there are some very good special schools in the independent sector. I do not wish to favour one sector over another; I simply want to increase flexibility and open up the whole breadth of education provision to allow the proper needs of young people to be met.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords for the way in which they have moved their probing amendments, because it gives me the chance to clarify the issue and reassure the Committee about the situation as we see it.
On Amendment No. 16, if a mainstream school that has taken all reasonable steps cannot avoid the conclusion that the presence of a child is incompatible with the efficient education of others, that child should not attend the school. If it is proved that there is no school in the maintained sector in which the child could be educated, provision should be sought elsewhere.
On Amendment No. 20, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the criteria for funding have not changed with regard to proposals here. It is not our intention to prevent LEAs funding children in the independent sector if that is appropriate. We know of cases where that has occurred in the past and it will undoubtedly occur in the future.
The technical problem with the third amendment is that it would prevent children who could benefit from a mainstream place from gaining one. It is expressed in such a form that once the individual school has not proved to be acceptable in providing adequate education, no other option obtains in the maintained sector. Of course, we want to ensure that there was the possibility of all opportunities being explored within the mainstream sector. However, we are committed to inclusion by choice. Where parents want a mainstream place for their child, it is right that we should do everything possible to provide it. Equally, where more specialist provision is necessary, parent's wishes need to be listened to in that context.
Lord Lucas: I follow on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I know a number of independent special schools in which half or more of their pupils come with statements from LEAs. Do I understand from the Minister that they are under no

CWH 49
threat whatsoever from the Bill? There are some excellent institutions that come under that category. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested, it appears that that may be discouraged in some way. A further reassurance would be welcome.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am happy to give that reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The option of the independent and voluntary sector still exists, and there is no change to the existing position in that respect.
Lord Lucas: I shall read what the Minister has said in Hansard with great interest, but I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools shall report to the Secretary of State on the use of subsection (3)(a) and (b) above. ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is primarily aimed at getting better information via Ofsted about the use of subsections (3)(a) and (b). We know about tribunals. We know of those who have gone through the system. The amendment is an attempt get some idea of how these powers will be used and how the system is working. As we have heard in this discussion today, there is no great clamour either way. It is to make sure that we get information and know what is going on. Also, if the caveat in subsection (3) (b) is being over-used the amendment would ensure that those in charge who set the standards know about that. It is merely a device for gathering information. I hope that the Minister warms to the idea underlying the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I support the amendment in principle, but it does not go far enough. If the inspectors are to be asked to examine the operation of the Bill when it is enacted, that will go beyond subsections 3)(a) and (b). That is interesting and important in itself. I dare say that the Government will want that to be considered in the natural measure of supervision.
I hope that the inspectors would produce a much fuller assessment of the capability of LEAs and the independent sector to provide special education. I sought to obtain some comparative performance data out of the department. It was difficult to do so. I wrote to the former chief inspector, Mr Woodhead, in June. I wanted to know how good was the school for blind children with which I am involved compared with others in the private and state sectors. One gets so involved with one's own school and thinks that it is marvellous. I wanted to see how good it really was.
In his reply the chief inspector wrote:
"The Inspectorate has not undertaken any specific work on the provision of education for blind and partially sighted children but all the special schools catering for such children in the state sector have been inspected and reports have been published. Most schools for Visually Impaired children have had very positive
CWH 50
inspection reports. We have not undertaken any specific comparisons between maintained and non-maintained VI schools.
Similarly, we have not investigated the specific impact of visually-impaired units within mainstream provision. Where such units have been commented upon within mainstream school reports, however, the observations have been generally very positive.
I am sorry that I cannot provide any more detailed information."
For this information on visually impaired you could also substitute the deaf or the physically disabled, or the autistic for that matter. We all need to know more about it. I should like to know how effective special education is in particular areas. Are the special schools doing a particularly good job, or are they narrowing the education so precisely that they are missing out on things? When it comes to mainstream schools, how effective are they at getting their children to take GCSE exams and getting them up the educational ladder? Are they actually fulfilling specific objectives?
This information is not readily available, because of the independent inspections of schools, and what is wanted is comparative information. If I were the parent of a child with any form of disability, I should want to see comparative data. I should want to see not only the facilities that are available either in independent or state maintained special schools, or in the mainstream schools. I should like to see output, effort, and how this compares elsewhere. I should want to inform myself, but I should say that this information is not readily available. It would do great service to the whole area of special educational needs if it were available. I do not believe that anyone other than inspectors could do it. Inspectors are particularly well suited to the task.
I hope that the Minister will take this away and reflect upon it, and consider how it can be done—not so much in the context of this Bill, but I should like to see a more discriminatory, selective system of approach. So much about special educational needs comes down to anecdote. There are particular cases—we have heard some today—which are very interesting, but anecdotes are not very reliable criteria on which to base very important decisions about the education of special educational needs children.
Lord Lucas: I support that entirely. There is very little information when you are faced with choosing a special school as to what the characteristics are, let alone whether one is good or bad. Some progress in that direction would be a great help to parents who find themselves in that position.
Baroness Blackstone: I think I can say something that should be helpful to Members of the Committee who have spoken on this amendment, which would require Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to report on the use of the caveats under Section 316(3) and to monitor the effect of a legislative framework on practice on the ground.
We believe that the new inclusion framework should be monitored. Let me first reassure the Committee that we can secure an effective monitoring regime without

CWH 51
the need to amend the Bill. There are already a number of robust measures in place to monitor the development of inclusions by schools and LEAs but we want to know much more about how this new provision will work on the ground. I entirely accept some of the reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has on the extent of our existing knowledge. We shall want to know what positive effects it will have for some children who want a place in a mainstream school. We also need to know if and how the provision is being used in a negative way. However, we need to remember that the original Section 316 was drafted as a positive pro-inclusion measure but, over time, it has begun to be seen as a negative force, as a mechanism to turn away children who have special educational needs from mainstream schools.
We shall certainly want to see whether this new statutory framework will put right any of the abuses that existed under the previous regime. I should like to give the Committee the absolute assurance that the Government will monitor very closely the new framework.
I turn now to Ofsted. The regular Ofsted inspection of schools and their inspection of LEAs, along with the work of the Audit Commission, ensures a fairly high level of accountability on what schools and LEAs are doing. The Secretary of State can use his powers in Section 2 of the Schools Inspections Act 1996 and Section 38 of the Education Act 1997 to require a report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools on any education function of schools or LEAs.
I give a commitment that the Government will be asking Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to look specifically at the impact of this provision once it is enacted and is being used as the legislative mechanism to determine whether a child with a statement of special educational needs is educated in a mainstream school or in a special school. That goes to the heart of what the noble Lord who supported this amendment wants to see.
I very much hope that the commitment that I have given will mean that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I do not know whether it goes as far as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would like. It provides a new opportunity to obtain far more information of a general kind, rather than just specific information about the inspection reports of individual schools, which should be helpful to us all.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for spotting the weakness of this probe and for sharpening it up a little. We seek to get rid of the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, identified. He put the matter succinctly. Every time we discuss this matter we talk about various problems. We must have better information if we are to discuss when inclusion is appropriate.
I thank the noble Baroness for her full response. I will, of course, read it through and check to see if there is anything else that we would like to extract at a
CWH 52
later date. I thank her for at least opening up this debate with such a positive response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 18 were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 19 or 20 owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, leave out lines 9 and 10.
The noble Baroness said: My understanding is that Amendment No. 20 has already been spoken to in a previous group of amendments. In some ways the Government's views on using the private sector, where appropriate, have been mentioned in fairly positive terms by the Minister.
The Bill continues to allow parents to choose to send a child with special educational needs to an independent school—I believe that that is right and proper—but only if the parent or someone other than the LEA pays for that. I do not agree with that. The Bill effectively bans an LEA from purchasing a place at an independent school for a child with special educational needs or from partially assisting the parents with the cost of that.
If it is the Minister's intention to improve the provision that we make for children with special needs, the Government must continue to acknowledge that an independent school may be best placed to assist a child with special educational needs. If that is the case, the relevant LEA, under its legal obligation to provide education, should pay for that in full or in part. The Bill, as I read it, prohibits LEAs from doing that. However, the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seemed to imply that, where it was appropriate and where provision could not be made within the maintained sector, LEAs would be free to purchase such education in whole or in part. Under the School Standards and Framework Act LEAs were not permitted to purchase education in the independent sector for children without special needs.
It would be helpful to have it unequivocally clarified that LEAs would be able to purchase the provision I have mentioned. It would be even more helpful to have the wording of the Bill modified to convey that. If my amendment is not right in every dot and comma, perhaps I could be advised as to how that could be done. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I have tabled the other amendments in this group. I share the lack of understanding about what subsection (1) does. The only function that I can see for it, following what the Minister has said, is to allow me to pay for my child to be educated in a special school if I so choose, but Section 316 does not stop me doing that anyway. What does the provision allow that would otherwise be forbidden by Section 316? What set of circumstances is it designed to deal with? My Amendment No. 19, whether it is relevant or not, depends on what subsection (1) is meant to be about.

CWH 53
It ought to be permitted for LEAs and parents to share the costs of going to an independent special school if both parties think that it is the best option but the LEA thinks that it can provide something cheaper. That sort of cost-sharing has long been possible in the provision of care for the elderly; I do not see why it should not be possible in care for the young.
My other amendments in this group are nothing to do with that issue. Amendment No. 29 relates to subsections (5) and (6) on page 3, which seem to allow the phrase "efficient use of resources", which has been excised from Section 316, to come back in another guise. If a local authority is allowed to argue that the steps that it would be required to take to provide for a child with SEN are unreasonable because of cost, we go straight back to the issue of the "efficient use of resources" as it exists in the Bill at the moment. The wording of subsections (5) and (6) opens the back door to local authorities to bring cost back into the equation and to say that they cannot provide for, say, a particular blind child in a particular school because it would be too expensive and the steps required would be unreasonable.
There are two aspects to Amendment No. 220. It picks up on another reference to "efficient use of resources", which is sitting around in Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act. Since we are removing those words from Section 316, we ought to question whether they should still be hanging around in Schedule 27.
The second half of that amendment is different, focusing on the duty imposed or the rights that are featured in Section 411(5) of the 1996 Act in relation to parental choice in mainstream schools. The amendment would reproduce that for choices of school under statements. The local authority can currently refuse to send a child to any school outside its own boundaries, because the old arrangements whereby LEA boundaries had some meaning for school choice are preserved for special education, whereas they have not been preserved for mainstream education. The second half of Amendment No. 220 is an attempt to bring special education into line with the provisions for mainstream education when it comes to the physical boundaries on parental choice.
Lord Northbourne: In the context of Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, I did not respond to the remarks of the Minister about Amendment No. 20, because I believed that it did not fit in with the etiquette. However, I am grateful to her. I had written against it "probe further". The questions asked by others here, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may give the Minister an opportunity to answer my points and enable me to cross out "probe further".
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The duty of an LEA to pay for independent schooling which is set out in Section 348 is specifically preserved in Section 316A(3)(a). LEAs will continue to be able to send children to independent schools if it is required
CWH 54
for the child's special educational needs, and the LEA can of course pay for such provision. I hope that is helpful to her.
Perhaps I may also immediately answer the question that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. If Section I did not exist, parents could not send a SEN child to an independent school at all because it would be in breach of the Human Rights Act. Do not ask me to explain the legal niceties of how it works because I do not know, but it preserves the rights of parents to use the independent sector if they pay. I hope that is helpful. It has a specific purpose here.
Perhaps I should say very quickly why we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will think her amendment is necessary in the light of what I have said. The amendments would seek to acquire funding in the case of Amendment No. 18, and partial funding in the case of Amendment No. 19 for places in independent and non-maintained schools, where that is what the parent wants. That would not be an appropriate step to take.
If parents decide to educate their children in an independent or non-maintained special school, that is a matter for them. If a school is named on a child's statement, or an LEA is satisfied that a child with special educational needs should attend a particular non-maintained school, then under Section 348 of the 1996 Act, the LEA is required to meet the fees.
LEAs are also given the power to meet the fees of children attending specialised institutions outside England and Wales. In other cases, the financial burdens of that child's private education should not rest either in whole or in part with the taxpayer. LEAs should be required to fund places in non-maintained schools only where it is appropriate for a child's statement to name such a school, or the child's interests require that special educational provision be made for him at a non-maintained school, and the particular school is appropriate. Members of the Committee will agree that that preserves the efficient use of resources, and that has been the system up until now.
In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will not press their amendments.
I turn to Amendment No. 29. It would be inappropriate to seek to set out on the face of the Bill all the reasonable steps maintained schools and LEAs could take to prevent a child's inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of other children. However, when it comes to considering what is reasonable, we believe that cost should be one of the factors to be taken into account. The concept of reasonableness is well understood. It will often be reasonable to spend some money, but it will not always be reasonable to spend large sums of money. It will depend on all the circumstances, and they should all be taken into account. That is the point of the reasonableness test and that is always how it has been.

CWH 55
This is a complex clause, but it is important to understand the interaction between taking reasonable steps and the efficient education of others. Maintained schools and LEAs will be able to rely on the exception that a child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children only where there are no reasonable steps which they could take to prevent that. As I said a moment ago, when it comes to considering what is reasonable—that is, whether an LEA or school can take reasonable steps to prevent a child's inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of others—cost will be a factor to be taken into account. However, cost will not be a factor when deciding whether a child's inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children. I hope that the guidance will make that absolutely clear.
We believe that detailed questions of what is reasonable are better suited to guidance and the clause provides for that. Maintained schools and LEAs will have to have regard to the guidance and I can assure noble Lords that the Government want to work with all the interested parties in drawing up that guidance. I hope that, having heard these reassurances, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is able to withdraw that amendment.
The intention behind Amendment No. 220 is to make it easier for parents to have an independent school named in their child's assessment. The existing arrangements give parents the opportunity to make representations for an independent school to be named in their child's statement. Where an LEA refuses to do so, parents can appeal to the tribunal against the school actually named, and suggest alternatives to the tribunal—including, if they wish, alternatives in the independent sector.
However, there will be a role here for the new informal arrangements which we hope will both prevent and resolve disputes. Where parents and the authority disagree over issues like this the new arrangements, which parents enter into voluntarily, and which do not in any way affect their right of appeal, will ensure that an acceptable solution is reached rather more quickly than has perhaps been the case.
Where is it appropriate for a child's statement to name an independent school suggested by parents, then the LEA really should do so. However, it is also right that LEAs should seek to use their resources efficiently—and nobody can disagree with that. The omission of efficient use of resources from the schedule is, for those reasons, quite inappropriate.
When making a determination in relation to a parental preference made in accordance with Schedule 27, or the representations made by parents for an independent school, we have to consider the cost. If we did not, we should be jeopardising the interests of all children. Where parents feel that an LEA has used that test inappropriately, they can seek redress from the tribunal, or use the new informal arrangements to resolve the dispute.
CWH 56
I conclude by saying that we value the important role of the independent sector. I should like to make that absolutely clear. The Bill specifically provides that parents should be free to send their children to non-maintained schools and it retains the duty on LEAs to pay for provision if they decide that a non-maintained school is appropriate. Our commitment to the sector is underlined by the quite significant additional funding that we have been able to provide to non-maintained special schools, which has been very widely welcomed.
In the light of these explanations, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for those comments. On Amendment No. 19 and subsection (1), I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness could write to me and tell me with which problem that subsection is meant to deal, just for my enlightenment. I should also be very grateful if the noble Baroness could save me having to table an amendment on Report, which is properly worded, and write to me about the second half of Amendment No. 220. As it is worded, I see that it deals with independent schools, but it is actually meant to be a reproduction of Clause 411(5) of the 1996 Act, which deals with maintained schools. I have just drafted the amendment wrongly and, if she could explain to me why that is not appropriate, then I will not table an amendment on Report to do what I should have done at this stage.
I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness said about Amendment No. 29 and I am much better informed as a result.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Before we part company with this group of amendments, the Minister kindly set out very explicitly the arrangements where there is a dispute between the LEA and parents —particularly where a school has been identified and failed. Disputes between parents and the LEA can occur much earlier during the process of when the statement is being determined and where the appeal is being made to the tribunal. It occurs to me—and this is fishing for later in the Bill—that it may have been drawn to the Minister's attention that a growing number of LEAs are now appointing barristers—counsel—to put their case at an SEN tribunal. Not all of them are doing so, but quite a few are. That definitely puts them at an advantage vis à vis the parents, unless the parents can also fund the very expensive legal advice involved. If this Bill is passed, will there be a perfectly level playing field? I do not think there will be. It may well be that in certain circumstances legal aid should be made available to parents, particularly when it is known that the local education authority is going to employ counsel, because that weights the argument strongly in favour of the experienced legal advice.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for what he said about my explanation, especially on Amendment No. 29. I am very happy to write to him on the other two issues that he has raised.

CWH 57
In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has just said, one reason why we want arrangements to resolve disputes before they reach a tribunal is to avoid those costs. I will certainly take back what he has said about the issue of local education authorities employing expensive barristers. Perhaps when we get to the relevant part of the Bill we can discuss the issue further.
Baroness Blatch: I shall withdraw Amendment No. 18, but I might also find it helpful to have a copy of the letter that is going to my noble friend Lord Lucas, because I am baffled by the provisions. I understand what the Minister has said—in a sense it repeats a number of responses to amendments that we have had already today. She is giving very accommodating answers, but they conflict with what is in the Bill.
The Bill says that Section 316 does not prevent a child from being educated at an independent school that is not a mainstream school or a school approved under Section 342 if the cost is met otherwise than by a local education authority.
I understood the Minister to say that the LEAs are free. She has mentioned other parts of the statute that refer to the freedom for LEAs to pay in whole or in part for a place at an independent school. However, as I understand the Minister's answer, Section 316 does not prevent a child from being educated in an independent school or a school approved under Section 342, whoever pays—the LEA, an individual, an organisation, a voluntary body or the parent.
I therefore find the reference to the cost being met otherwise than by an LEA confusing. In responding to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas and in writing the letter to explain this section, I hope that the Minister will reflect that these words are otiose here. A child is not prevented from being educated in an independent school, because the cost can be met by anybody. No one is prohibited from meeting the cost of the fees, including the LEA, as I understand the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Section 316 does not prevent a child from being educated in a special independent school where the cost is met by a local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not speak to Amendment No. 41, because it is on a different subject. Perhaps it should wait its turn on the Marshalled List.
I apologise for the typographical error in the wording of Amendment No. 21, which should, of course, refer to an "independent special school" and not to a "special independent school". The Minister may already have set my fears at rest over the amendment, so I can be brief.
The amendment would merely make sure that independent special schools were not caught by the new provisions of Section 316A(1)(a), to which my noble friend, Lady Blatch, has just referred, and which seem to prevent funding by local education authorities of places in non-mainstream independent schools.
My worries may be unfounded, but I fear that an independent special school could be held to be neither a special school nor an independent school as those expressions appear technically on the face of the Bill, so I wanted to be quite clear on that. The previous section seems to make clear that special schools can continue to be funded by LEAs but the Bill is not clear to me on the position of independent special schools.
As usual, I should declare an interest because my daughter has received a wonderful education in an independent special school, one of the Steiner Camp Hill community schools and has moved on to a residential college with the same philosophy. There are, of course, other kinds of independent special schools, I believe more than 50 altogether, so I assume it is not the intention of the Bill to cut off their main line of support, which comes from the LEAs. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall try to be as brief as the noble Lord, if only because, if I set out to repeat what my noble friend the Minister has just said, there will be a danger of my either being totally repetitive, or deviating from it or, even worse, contradicting it and I should be in a parlous state.
I wish to re-emphasise that the points that were made with regard to the last amendment certainly obtain in relation to independent special schools. There is no separate legal category for them; they are all independent schools and, therefore, the argument presented by my noble friend a moment ago on the previous amendment obtains in respect of the special schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 8, after ("steps") insert ("in relation to the arrangements it makes for education or associated services provided for, or offered to, pupils at the school")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 28 concerns the question of reasonable steps being taken by the local education authority or the school before excluding a child. It is yet another attempt to make sure that children with special educational needs cannot be unreasonably blocked by the LEA insisting on exclusion from mainstream schools. Time and time again this afternoon, we have heard that there are many genuine fears about children being unreasonably excluded.
The RNID has sent some striking examples—one being where it knows of teachers who refuse to wear neck loop microphones with a deaf child in the class. The significance of that is that that child's education

CWH 59
stops dead because the teacher refuses unreasonably to wear a neck loop microphone. I find that really shocking and absolutely indefensible to be damaging a child in that way simply because of that excuse.
The second example that I know of is the exclusion of deaf children because the presence of communication support would distract other pupils. Perhaps we have seen this afternoon how nonsensical this is when you have communication support which goes almost totally unnoticed and to argue that the child should be excluded because of communication support is not only wrong, it is bizarre. On that basis, no handicapped child with any disability could be assisted in school, because any assistance could be construed as distracting to other children.
The clause permits exclusion only if the school is able to show that no reasonable steps could have been taken to include the child. The problem is that the clause has no indication of what is reasonable and the RNID says that it has many examples of necessary minor alterations to schools being used to justify exclusion. If they are going to change a window, a little brickwork, and use that as an excuse for excluding children, anything goes and we simply have to stop this.
I conclude by saying that the amendment will ensure a broad interpretation of "reasonable steps" and will clarify the point that these may go beyond a particular class and the phrasing in Clause 10 where it is intended to be comprehensive about what goes on in schools. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Amendment No. 30 is in my name. I am fully aware that the inclusion of a list may not be a favourite form of amendment. This is not a totally inclusive list; it is merely items that shall be taken into account when talking about reasonableness. The definition of what is and what is not reasonable is effectively what we are talking about here.
The examples given in my amendment are ones for which we have briefing and which we have already discussed today in all cases. For example, the case of Nicky Crane is probably the most absurd example I have heard. He was somebody who was not allowed to leave a classroom a few minutes early. Anybody thinking about that situation for two or three seconds would be absolutely appalled by it.
The danger of a list amendment is that the list never stops. I suggest that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, would be a better way of approaching the matter. However, we are trying to get some commitment as to what is reasonable in this context. Effectively, no one type of activity should be regarded as being unreasonable.
To go back to the great demon of anecdotal experience, throughout my educational career being dyslexic and rather less informed than today, I had certain teachers who went almost apoplectic at the idea of a tape recorder being used in class. That would not happen now because we have moved on. Also they found even more worrying the idea that you would not
CWH 60
be take verbatim notes. Indeed, this stopped at university when I told the tutor in question that I would simply copy the notes out of the text book that he copied them out of—or rather read it.
With a little flexibility, one can get round most things. But we are trying to make sure there is no one activity that of itself is regarded as unreasonable. If the Minister can assure me that movement, technical assistance, or even some way of communicating with a person in class would itself not be reasonable, I should be a much happier person.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Very briefly, I support the spirit of both the amendments, and I hope the Minister will be able to come up with something that she can put on the face of the Bill that will remedy this.
Lord Rix: In the list of problems, we have not discussed making arrangements to accommodate the medical needs of pupils. I speak for Mencap of which I am president. We have heard some pretty horrendous stories over the past years of extraordinary rigidities in schools which insist on children leaving their health needs behind when they get to the school doors. I not only support the amendment, but support that clause in particular.
Baroness Blackstone: The aim of the amendments is to clarify what steps it could be reasonable for maintained schools and LEAs to take in order to prevent inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of others. Members of the Committee will be pleased to know that maintained schools must already comply with the national curriculum inclusion statement. By virtue of Section 317 of the 1996 Act, they must also use their best endeavours to ensure that the special educational provision called for by pupils' special educational needs is made. For example, they should allow a learning support assistant into class if that is specified in a child's statement. I hope that is the kind of reassurance which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, wanted.
I am afraid I may be a disappointment to the Committee in saying that it would not be appropriate to seek to set out on the face of the Bill all the reasonable steps that maintained schools and LEAs could take to prevent a child's inclusion being incompatible with the efficient education of other children. This could unnecessarily restrict the inclusion of children in the future. After all, inclusion is a process, not a fixed state. What is unreasonable now may not be in years to come when I hope that schools will be far more inclusive and accessible. If we set out reasonable steps on the face of the Bill, changes to reflect the development of inclusion would require primary legislation, which we want to avoid.
We believe that these considerations are better suited to guidance and the clause provides for this. Maintained schools and LEAs will have to have regard to the guidance. I want to assure noble Lords that the Government want to work with all interested parties in drawing up the guidance and that we shall want to consult on it.

CWH 61
Of course, it will be important to consider each case on its individual merits. But I hope that noble Lords were reassured by the examples I set out earlier of the sorts of pupils where we believe no reasonable steps could be taken to ensure that their inclusion was not incompatible with the efficient education of others. I said then and I will repeat again that many more pupils with SEN can and should benefit from a mainstream placement.
Guidance will underline that it will only be possible to demonstrate that a child's inclusion is incompatible with the efficient education of other children in a small minority of cases. Guidance will also address what factors might be taken into account when assessing what reasonable steps could be taken to overcome the incompatibility.
Having heard these reassurances, I hope that my noble friend, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I have listened to my noble friend. She leans over backwards to help. However, I must say that guidance will be completely ignored by the kind of local education authorities and schools I have in mind because it is by no means strong enough. I recognise that she is doing what she can to help.
I am anxious that the Minister should understand that making these criticisms of specific aspects of the Bill in no way denigrates my warm support for it as a whole. It is a great Bill, but I am making these detailed points because the Government are slightly awry on them. I will of course withdraw this amendment and possibly return to it at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) "Prescribed", in relation to Wales, means prescribed in regulations made by the National Assembly for Wales.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 31 I speak to the other government amendments in this group. This group of amendments is essentially technical and clarifies the powers and role of the National Assembly for Wales to reflect the devolution settlement. It is only right that, in areas where functions have been devolved to the National Assembly, it should be able to exercise its powers. Amendments Nos. 31, 123 and 124, taken together, give the National Assembly the power to make regulations in respect of duties in areas which have been devolved to Wales.
Amendment No. 64 will require the agreement of the Assembly when the DfEE makes regulations specifying the period within which a local education authority must comply with an order of the SEN tribunal. This reflects the devolution settlement under which matters relating to the tribunal are dealt with by the Secretary of State, but with the National Assembly's agreement.
Amendments Nos. 147 to 149, and 151 to 153, taken together, provide that directions relating to orders of the tribunal dealing with disability duties, which are reserved, should only be given by the Secretary of State and not by the National Assembly. Amendment No. 199 gives the National Assembly the power to commence specific sections of the Bill, in so far as they relate to Wales. Amendments Nos. 195, 200 and 201 make consequential changes which follow from this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I think this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday, 29th January at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Monday next.
The Committee adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

  Civil Society Challenge Fund
  Civil Society Challenge Fund
  River Danube: Clearance
  River Danube: Clearance
  Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YCC: Possible Evacuation
  Blundeston Prison and Hollesley Bay YCC: Possible Evacuation
  Lawfully Held Firearms and Public Safety
  Lawfully Held Firearms and Public Safety
  Dogs Kept in High Rise Tower Blocks
  Dogs Kept in High Rise Tower Blocks
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd: Regulatory Regime
  National Air Traffic Services Ltd: Regulatory Regime
  House of Lords Smoking Policy
  House of Lords Smoking Policy
  UK Current Account and Reserve Asset Levels 1990–2000
  UK Current Account and Reserve Asset Levels 1990–2000
  EMU: Conditions for Stage 3 Participation
  EMU: Conditions for Stage 3 Participation
  Sterling-Deutschmark Exchange Rate 1996–2001
  Sterling-Deutschmark Exchange Rate 1996–2001
  Treasure Annual Report
  Treasure Annual Report