Commons Sitting of 14 November 2001

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

    Transport
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on transport in Wales.[12466]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Minister of the National Assembly regularly to discuss wide-ranging current issues affecting Wales, including transport. Transport generally is a matter for the National Assembly, although railways, air transport and ports remain, generally, the responsibility of central Government, working closely with the Assembly on matters affecting Wales. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues to determine how best to meet the transport needs of Wales.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Secretary of State agree with the director of the Confederation of British Industry of Wales, who said that we cannot continue to grow the economy at the speed that we would wish while 70 per cent. of the population is served by a two-lane motorway? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to increase road capacity in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: As I said, the matter of roads is for the Assembly to consider. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the last spending review was an extremely good one for Wales. It meant that much more money could be spent on roads in Wales, including the £25 million that was announced only last week for all the local authorities in Wales.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: When my right hon. Friend meets the First Minister, will he raise the serious overcrowding on the bus service between Llandogo and Monmouth? Sixty to 70 children a day have to travel on a scheduled bus service run by Stagecoach, which refuses to put on an extra service unless it is paid for by the county council, even though it already receives two subsidies for
    842
    the service. Does he accept that the three-for-two rule allows unacceptable overcrowding for pupils under the age of 14?
    Mr. Murphy: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's campaign on the matter. I know that he raised it in an Adjournment debate in the House, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is raising it with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in Wales, Jane Davidson. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that local education authorities are obliged to provide transport that is non-stressful, because if it were stressful, it could interfere with children's education.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Can the Secretary of State tell the House why Railtrack is not progressing with the essential improvements to the Cambrian line and Cambrian coast railways, even though, as his colleague in the National Assembly must have told him, the Assembly is allocating a substantial sum to those improvements? Why are people in Wales getting such a bad deal from the Government over railways?
    Mr. Murphy: I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the people of Wales got a bad deal from the previous Government when they privatised the railways. The Cambrian line upgrade has not been scrapped. The investment has been provided by the Assembly and the Strategic Rail Authority. It is scheduled for the period 2002 to 2006. Because Railtrack is in administration, it cannot make a decision about when the work will be carried out, but the investment will be forthcoming.
    Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by P & O that it will move its main Ireland ferry service from Liverpool to Mostyn docks and the part played by the National Assembly for Wales in that excellent move?
    Mr. Murphy: I certainly welcome the fact that the National Assembly put some £17 million into Mostyn docks. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly interested in those improvements to the economy of north-east Wales. Developments at Mostyn docks over the past few months and in the future will make an enormous difference to the economy of his constituency and to north Wales in general.

    Flooding
    Mr. Gregory Barker: What discussions he has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on measures to assist people who live in flood-prone areas within Wales. [12467]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and those discussions cover floods and related matters. I have had recent discussions with colleagues on flood defence matters. I also represent Wales on the rural taskforce.
    Mr. Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that up to 120,000 homes along the Welsh coastline are still at risk from flooding if there is a repeat this winter

    843
    of last year's heavy rainfall? Furthermore, up to 50 per cent. of the families in those homes are unaware of that risk. Given that, will he admit that the paltry £14 million that has so far been made available to Welsh flood committees is totally inadequate? What plans has he to make further immediate provision?
    Mr. Touhig: The unprecedented flooding last October was the worst for half a century or more. My colleague Ministers in the National Assembly provided £6.5 million to local authorities to help clear-up operations and to make damaged services secure again. An additional £15 million is being made available to local authorities to carry out major repairs and improvements over the next four years. Last autumn's flooding provided a severe test of the flood warning arrangements, but they proved to be robust, having just been upgraded. The system did very well in the circumstances. Most importantly, not a single life was lost, and we are all thankful for that. Some 10,000 homes throughout England and Wales were affected by flooding, but as a result of good flood defence measures, 300,000 homes were protected.
    Mark Tami: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable work that is being done in my constituency to combat flooding? Flintshire county council in particular has made the issue a priority. However, does he agree that the need remains for greater co-operation between local authorities, water companies and the Environment Agency to deal with the matter effectively?
    Mr. Touhig: It is essential that there is very close co-operation between the statutory and local authorities. I am aware that there have been problems in my hon. Friend's constituency, but I believe that the measures that are being implemented and the funding that is being provided will help to overcome them. If he is concerned about a specific problem, I ask him to write to me about it, and 1 shall take it up on his behalf.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is the Minister aware of the despair, upset and sheer emotional distress that many home owners feel when their homes are flooded? Does he accept that his policy has so far been woefully inadequate? Is he aware that the Institution of Civil Engineers concluded last week that spending on flooding needed to be doubled and went on to describe Government policy in this area as piecemeal and short term? Ministers are fond of bleating about how advantageous our membership of the European Union is, so why will he not claim some of the money that is available from the European Union to member states for this purpose, thereby helping to alleviate—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Touhig: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his Front-Bench position. It is not for me to comment on the length of his questions, but he has certainly shortened the winter. I do not accept the view that the Government have not done a great deal to overcome the problems that we faced last year. There is a short-term programme of repairs and renewals to ensure that we avoid the problems this year. There is also a long-term programme of initiatives, which includes the
    844
    carrying out in England and Wales of a DEFRA-led flood defence review. My colleagues in the Assembly are taking part in that consultation and we expect to have the results by Christmas.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I remind the Minister that despite his assurances about the unusual floods that we had in October, the town of Ruthin has suffered severe floods twice since then? I witnessed them. Even the Welsh Local Government Association, which is friendly to him, says that £50 million of new money is required to put things right in Wales. So far, there has been £15 million, plus the £6 million. That is not even halfway, so will he please redouble his efforts and ensure that we protect these societies and the people in them?
    Mr. Touhig: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. It is in all our interests to help communities such as Ruthin, which were blighted by the events of last October. 1 believe that the Assembly is working very progressively with local authorities. As I said, it has provided £15 million to fund schemes for the next four years. I think that that will make an important contribution. There is never enough money to do all the work because there is always a problem: when the crisis is staunched in one area, problems can arise in another. I believe that the discussions between my friends in the Assembly and local authorities mean that steps are being made in the right direction. We will do everything that we can to ensure that if there are difficulties this winter, we have the resources in place to overcome them.
    Lembit Öpik: The Minister will know that many rivers have their sources in Powys, including the Usk, the Severn and the Wye. Is he aware that, a couple of years ago, the Secretary of State for Wales and I held a meeting with the Environment Agency to reduce water levels in the Clywedog dam and thus reduce the risk of overflow at peak times? That reduced flooding. Is he willing to facilitate further such meetings to extend that successful scheme to other reservoirs in the interests of reducing flooding both in Wales and in parts of England?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I would be most willing to use my services to facilitate such a meeting.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the effects of devolution on the administration of the Dee estuary.[12468]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): As my hon. Friend and I discussed when we met recently to consider the Dee estuary, its administration raises interesting and unique cross-border management issues, which I shall raise with my ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that have been taken so far. Does he agree that, following devolution, cross-border, environmentally sensitive matters merit special consideration, which might

    845
    extend to core funding for the estuary strategy and better co-operation between the environment and development agencies in England and Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more. I have raised the matter with the First Minister and the Minister for the Environment in the Assembly. I agree that there should be good co-operation between the environment agencies and, as my hon. Friend said, the development agencies. I shall keep in touch with him, and I hope to visit the estuary soon.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. Will he discuss with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is responsible for fisheries, the exploitation of mollusc beds in the Dee estuary by unlicensed people? That activity is to the great detriment of the Inland Revenue and is environmentally degrading an important stock.
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I shall do that. When I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend some weeks ago, he mentioned the cockle beds in the Dee estuary. It is important for both environment agencies to tackle the problem. I assure him that I shall discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    Crime
    Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales. [12470]
    Mr. Dai Havard: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.[12472]
    Mr. Wayne David: If he will make a statement on the measures taken by the Government to tackle crime in Wales.[12473]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales(Mr. Don Touhig): The Government's partnership approach to fighting crime is making a significant difference in communities throughout Wales. With funding running into millions of pounds, local crime and disorder reduction partnerships are implementing projects targeted at crime hotspots, domestic violence and drug-related crime. Much of the funding is being channelled specifically into the most deprived communities and is going a long way towards building safer and more inclusive communities.
    Mr. Smith: Does my right hon. Friend know that recorded crimes in the Vale of Glamorgan division of the South Wales police area have decreased from 15,000 a year in 1995 to 10,000 a year? That has transformed towns such as Barry, including the seaside resort of Barry Island, from being among the most crime-ridden
    846
    communities to being among the safest in the country. Will he join me in paying tribute to Superintendent Colin Jones and his officers for that magnificent achievement?
    Hon. Members: Answer
    Mr. Touhig: Tough one that.
    Burglaries in the Vale of Glamorgan police division have fallen by 31 per cent. in the past year. A similar reduction has occurred in the theft of motor vehicles, and there has been a reduction of 19 per cent. in thefts from vehicles. That is down to good policing and providing resources, to which the Government are committed. I congratulate Superintendent Colin Jones on the way in which he leads his force in the Vale of Glamorgan police division. I understand that the Prime Minister congratulated him in No. 10 Downing street.
    Mr. Havard: Does my right hon. Friend know that the change to deprivation funding by the Youth Justice Board means a significant increase in the money available for its valuable and successful work in my constituency? The community intelligence-led approach to policing in Merthyr Tydfil and the safer Merthyr homes scheme have received United Kingdom recognition. The community warden scheme is being extended to other parts of the UK. What plans does he have to work with other Departments, the National Assembly for Wales and all relevant agencies to ensure sustained funding for the successful initiatives that have done so much to decrease crime rates and improve safety in my constituency?
    Mr. Touhig: Since my appointment to this office in June, I have made three visits to my hon. Friend's constituency, and I have been impressed by the range of initiatives aimed at building stronger communities. I am aware of the well established neighbourhood and warden schemes in Pen-y-darren and Bedlinog, which offer good examples of what can be achieved with communities working together. I also welcome the award of £70,000 earlier this year under the crime reduction programme. I understand that the community warden scheme to which he referred has been extended into Dowlais ward, and significant progress has already been made in building a stronger and better community as a result.
    Mr. David: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Will he give the House more specific information about the measures that the police in Wales are likely to introduce to reduce antisocial behaviour?
    Mr. Touhig: Like most hon. Members, I represent communities that have been blighted by problems of antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend and I share the same borough and police division, and I can tell him that the Government have introduced a number of measures to address antisocial behaviour, including antisocial behaviour orders. Such orders, which seek to curb the activities of individuals who make the lives of others a misery, start as civilian orders but can become criminal orders if their conditions are breached. Two hundred such orders have been approved in England and Wales.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs recently took part in a seminar in Cardiff promoting the use of antisocial behaviour orders, and I hope that, as a result of that, more police authorities will take up their use.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that you will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I inject an air of realism into these questions on law and order.
    What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Home Secretary to prioritise violent crime as an issue that needs urgent action? The number of crimes of violence against the person in Wales in 1997 was 17,386; the figure today is 38,230. The total figure for violent crime in 1997 was 20,071; today it is 40,880. When are we going to have some urgent action to tackle violent crime in Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have launched an action plan to combat violent crime. Indeed, detection rates for violent crime in the South Wales police area stand at 86 per cent. Violent crime figures in that area have risen slightly, but not by anything like the national average. Most violent offences are committed in public areas—for example, brawls outside pubs and clubs—and initiatives have been put in place to combat them. I am pleased with the initiatives taken by the South Wales police to tackle violent crime, which have significantly increased detection rates.
    Mr. Evans: I am glad that the Minister is satisfied, but I suspect that the people of Wales are not. He knows that violent crime has gone up, while the number of special constables who assist the regular constabulary has gone down. In 1997, there were 1,142 specials in Wales; today, there are 811. Will he undertake to have urgent talks with the Home Secretary about increasing the number of specials in Wales? Will he also give his full support to the police in Wales? Last year, 715 police were injured in assaults in the line of duty in Wales. Will he give his full backing to the campaign to ensure that, next year, the police get the Queen's golden jubilee medal, which they so richly deserve?
    Mr. Touhig: I shall take the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have taken note of his point but, if not, I shall draw it to his attention.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)indicated assent.
    Mr. Touhig: Indeed, my right hon. Friend has.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point about specials, but he ignores the fact that, in the last year, the number of police officers on the beat in Wales has increased by 241. Indeed, there will be a further increase of 259 police officers on the beat in Wales in the coming year. That contrasts sharply with the reduction in the number of officers on the beat when his party was in government.

    Security
    Albert Owen: What recent discussions he has had with the appropriate Government Ministers and Departments relating to increased security measures at ports, RAF bases and nuclear installations in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [12471]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I am in regular contact with Cabinet colleagues through the civil contingencies committee, of which the First Minister and I are both members.
    The Government have taken all prudent measures to protect infrastructure installations including those to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Albert Owen: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. He will be aware of the concerns of my constituents in Ynys Môn, an area with a major ferry port, an RAF training base and a nuclear power station. He will further be aware of the cost implications of additional security measures for the two companies in the port. Has he raised with the Cabinet the possibility of grant aid? If so, what was the response?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but I assure him that the Government are doing all in their power to safeguard the people of Anglesey. I understand that Stena has raised the matter with the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, which is considering the request, but I cannot prejudge the decision to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
    In respect of Wylfa, our civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures, regulated by the Office of Civil Nuclear Security, and work with the Health and Safety Executive. Both bodies have reviewed their precautions in the light of 11 September and are making recommendations to the Government. Clearly, it would be wrong for me to go into further detail, including the details to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Given that many of the military personnel who may soon see active service in Afghanistan were trained in my constituency on the Brecon Beacons and the Epynt training range, will the Secretary of State ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence enhances security at the military bases at Brecon and Sennybridge to safeguard the security of the soldiers and communities that live and work in that area?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and shall pass it on to the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on individual security details.
    Llew Smith: While I accept the need to increase security at nuclear installations, does the Secretary of State accept that that is only a short-term measure and that the real answer is to bring an end to our nuclear role, thereby removing the risk of terrorist attack on such targets?
    Mr. Murphy: I note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Hywel Williams: Following the recent terrorist outrages, will the Secretary of State ask the performance and innovation unit's energy review group to extend its remit to report on the security of nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Murphy: We take all those points into account but, as 1 have said, at these difficult times it would not be

    849
    right for me to go into detail on the recommendations that have been made to the Department of Trade and Industry. The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman and taken his remarks into account.

    Miners' Compensation
    Ian Lucas: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the progress of settlements of claims in the miners' compensation scheme in north-east Wales. [12475]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy recently attended the Welsh coal health claims monitoring group to discuss the operation of the scheme in Wales, following which he and I then met volunteer workers with the National Union of Mineworkers. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales established the Welsh monitoring group specifically to address coal health issues in Wales. I am convinced that the measures discussed, and the actions taken so far by the monitoring group will further speed the process of paying out claims to miners and their widows.
    Ian Lucas: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. While I recognise that this is the largest legal claim in British history and appreciate my hon. Friend's commitment to the issue, does he accept that practical difficulties remain? They include the case of my constituent, Mr. Thomas Evans, who has been waiting two years for a spirometry test. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will do everything in his power to ensure that the Wrexham assessment centre operates at full capacity in future?
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend referred. Mr. Evans had a spirometry test in October 1999; in December 2000, the test was declared invalid and he was given the option of being re-tested. He declined the offer and, as a result, went on to apply for the full second-phase test, the MAP test. I am given to understand by IRISC, the Government's claim handlers, that it wrote to Mr. Evans's solicitors in July asking for a claims pack to be completed and is still awaiting its return. I shall do anything I can to help my hon. Friend speed up that claim. The monitoring group is fully aware of the problems that have been causing difficulties with the operation of the Wrexham testing centre, but we are satisfied that everything is being done to provide the necessary respiratory consultants to carry out all the tests required. If he wishes, I shall look into the case further. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will also reply to him directly.
    Adam Price: We have already heard how bad the situation is in north-east Wales. However, according to the Government's own figures, only 3 per cent. of claims in Carmarthenshire have been fully and finally settled. After all the representations that the Secretary of State has had on the issue from Welsh Members, why does Wales still have the slowest processing rate for full and final claims?
    Mr. Touhig: May I, in the friendliest possible way, warn the hon. Gentleman to be wary of statistics? There
    850
    are various reasons for the comparative figures that he gave on full and final settlements in Wales and the United Kingdom. Although it is true that 7 per cent. of claims in Wales have been settled fully and finally, there are reasons for the delays. There can, for example, be delays because of the number of claimants and the difficulty in collecting evidence and the work records of older claimants—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to listen I shall give him an answer. There have, of course, also been difficulties in collecting hospital records.
    In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in the two postcode areas to which he referred in his interview in this morning's newspapers, 1,620 claimants have submitted claims and have received £2 million in interim and in full and final settlements. Additionally, a further 613 claimants have made claims under the vibration white finger scheme and have received £1 million. Therefore, about 30 per cent. of all claimants in his parliamentary constituency have received funding—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The reply is too long.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a seminar on primary care trusts and the national health service. I also spoke to President Bush and Chancellor Schröder on the current international crisis. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Turner: Given that, on 4 July, the Prime Minister promised concessionary travel for pensioners on long-distance coach services, does he sympathise with pensioners on the Isle of Wight who have to cross the most expensive stretch of water in the country to board those coach services? Will he provide similar concessions on ferries?
    The Prime Minister: That is a good constituency question. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that commitment, but I hope that he will join me in supporting concessionary bus fares for pensioners. Such a scheme was rejected for many years under the previous, Conservative Government, but it has been delivered under the current one.
    Dr. Hywel Francis: The House will know of the terrible explosion that occurred last Thursday in the No. 5 blast furnace in Port Talbot in my constituency. I am sure that the Prime Minister will wish to join me and the whole House in sending our deepest condolences to the families of the three men who died and to the families of the 13 men who were injured and remain in Morriston hospital. May I also invite the Prime Minister to join me

    851
    in thanking the emergency services for the tremendous work that they did, and particularly the burns unit in Morriston hospital for the continuing work that it is doing for the injured? Finally, may I also ask him to join me in urging the press and all parties concerned to respect the privacy of the families and the work force in their hour of need and to allow the various inquiries to continue their vital work?
    The Prime Minister: First, I know that my hon. Friend has spoken for the whole House in extending the sympathies of both sides of the House to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy. I certainly join him in congratulating the emergency services on the work that they have done. I know that the Health and Safety Executive is investigating the incident, and it is too early to speculate on the exact causes. I am sure that that investigation should be allowed to continue, and I hope very much that those parts of the media that are reporting on the issue will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister's condolences expressed to the constituents of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis) who suffered in that tragic accident?
    In the light of today's increases in unemployment, will the Prime Minister confirm that the International Labour Organisation's figures show that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country has fallen to the lowest level since its records began?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the fall in employment, the rise in unemployment, is deeply regrettable, but, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will know, these are economic circumstances that are affecting the entire world at present. There have been rises in unemployment in virtually every one of the major western European and American countries. I think most people accept that as a result of low inflation, low interest rates, strong public finances and a huge reduction in unemployment over the past few years, Britain is probably as well placed as any major economy to weather the storms that we are experiencing.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Everyone would accept the existence of difficulties arising from 11 September, but should not the Prime Minister recognise that these latest figures show a fall in manufacturing employment of more than 120,000 in the year to September—before the events of 11 September? Even his own Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
    "before 11 th September, thousands of manufacturing workers were losing their jobs."
    She went on to say:
    "There is real pain in our manufacturing industry."
    She was right, but British business does not need a Government who feel its pain; it needs a Government who recognise that red tape and stealth taxes are stopping British people from keeping their jobs.
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is true that manufacturing industry has been through very difficult times, and indeed was going through difficult times before 11 September. That is happening in many parts of the
    852
    world at present, for obvious reasons—not just those associated with 11 September, but because of events before then, when growth rates were predicted to fall in most of the European economies and, indeed, the American economy. Manufacturing also had a very tough time because of the weakness of the euro and the strength of the pound.
    I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's claim that this is to do with issues involving tax or regulation. In fact, what has happened in this country is that, since this Government came to power, we have the lowest interest rates we have had for 40 years, the lowest inflation in Europe, and the highest employment of any major European country. If we are talking about the pain of manufacturing, I think that what most parts of manufacturing remember are the early 1990s, when we lost more than a million jobs, output fell by 7 per cent. and interest rates were at 15 per cent.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: But this Government have imposed more than £10 billion in extra costs on British business. That is why the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said last week:
    "You are a regulatory government … You are a Government that last year brought in 3,800 regulations in 365 days".
    Is it not time for the Prime Minister to admit that this Government are damaging British business, and to instruct his Chancellor to give business a break?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little unwise to quote the CBI director general. He did not quote all that the director general said last week. The director general also said that the United Kingdom had
    "low interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment—the most successful economy in Western Europe."
    As for the bits of regulation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the figure of more than 3,000 relates to statutory instruments. It is true that there have been more than 3,000 statutory instruments; there were during the last years of the last Government. That is because 60 per cent. are to do with local matters, and nothing to do with regulation. [Interruption.] No, they have absolutely nothing to do with it.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's £10 billion figure, I will itemise how it is broken down by some parts of business. The vast majority relates to the minimum wage. [Interruption.] We are in favour of it, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was. The vast majority of the rest is to do with the working time directive, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, was agreed by the last Government and implemented by us.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the quest for a sustainable future for Afghanistan, the role of the United Nations will become increasingly important in securing both international and internal acceptance for a future Administration? Will he give every co-operation that he can to ensure that the UN can indeed find a stable future for that country?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will do everything that we can to support the United Nations in its work. As he rightly says, we require

    853
    a broad-based regime in Afghanistan., and the people to lead the process are undoubtedly the United Nations. We have to demonstrate to the people of Afghanistan that the whole of the world community stands behind a broad-based Government and reconstruction in Afghanistan over a period of time. We remain totally committed to both those objectives.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I share the Prime Minister's desire to fight terrorism in Britain, but does he agree that we should not do so by unduly undermining our existing human and democratic rights here? In that context, will he reconsider the proposed part of the new anti-terrorism legislation that would remove the right to judicial review for special immigration appeal cases? Would not that removal run the risk of sending quite the wrong signal?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for this reason: it is important that we have the power to detain suspected terrorists whom we cannot deport to another country, for reasons connected with the current state of the law, as he knows. If we do not have that power, there is a severe gap in the legislation. We take this power reluctantly and after careful consideration, but in the present circumstances I do not believe that it would be responsible, for the protection of citizens here, not to have it, although it will be exercised. of course, in a very small number of cases.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister therefore acknowledge that, with our having so recently incorporated the European convention, that reluctance must extend to the Government's feeling that, because of events, we have to opt out of one of its provisions? Can he at least give the House a guarantee that, at the first practicable moment, he will restore article 5, because it would be perverse in the extreme for us to remove civil rights in our own country at the very moment when we are, quite properly, campaigning for them on the international stage?
    The Prime Minister: We are not opting out of the European convention. We have the power within the convention, in certain specific circumstances, to ensure that we can exercise particular powers. We have taken those powers to ourselves for this reason: we were in a situation in which suspected terrorists were coming into this country and we were unable to deport them to another country because, for example, that country might have executed them. So, we had a gap in the power and those people were allowed to stay and could not be detained, and they are a threat to our national security. There are not many of them, but they are a threat.
    It is very important in these circumstances, particularly when we know that the threat posed by the terrorist network still exists, that we have the powers that we need. However, there are two very important safeguards. First, when we detain, the case is taken to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. People can present their case there, but we can also present our confidential security evidence. There are also appeals on points of law in respect of the commission's decisions. Secondly, we have made it clear—and we will abide by this—that the legislation must be reviewed and renewed annually. That is what we will do. Those are proper safeguards.
    854
    The provisions will apply only in a small number of cases, but I can only imagine the position in the House if we failed to take the powers and ended up with people whom we knew to be suspected terrorists being at liberty in this country to cause difficulty either here or abroad.
    Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the millions of people in Afghanistan who were facing the prospect of starvation this winter will now be secure in the knowledge that aid and food will be given to them, so they can face the winter with peace and security, knowing that their children will not starve to death?
    The Prime Minister: We are now able, as I will explain, to get substantially more food and aid into Afghanistan and, most important of all, ensure that it is directed at the people who really need it. We will give every support and help to that programme. That is far easier to do now that the Taliban regime is collapsing.
    Sir Robert Smith: Last year, 547 sub-post offices closed, but anyone thinking of investing in re-opening one of them would be completely unclear about how the universal bank and the card account will affect that business. Will the Prime Minister therefore ensure that his Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry get together to end that uncertainty, otherwise, his promise that pensions can be collected from a sub-post office will be a hollow one?
    The Prime Minister: They still can be, at present, and we need to ensure that the new arrangements are in place by the time the new system comes in. We will ensure that that is done. Of course, we must ensure that the details of the universal bank—exactly how it will work—are properly worked out in practice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: As one of the 39 old-age pensioners in the House, I declare an interest in my question. Does the Prime Minister agree with the 2,000 pensioners who visited Westminster on 6 November that it is morally indefensible to ask elderly patients, who have carefully saved for years, to pay for parts of their health care that will be free in Scotland soon?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the changes that we have introduced, pensioners will not have to pay for nursing care that they used to have to pay for. The question is whether we should go further and spend what amounts to £1 billion on personal care. [Interruption.] When we talk about spending money, the Liberal Democrats say yes before even doing the sums or before it is stated what the money is to be spent on. The fact is we do not believe that that is the best use of money.
    In respect of different parts of health care, including the amount that will be spent on the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we have to choose priorities. Our belief is that we are making changes in paying for nursing care, but the £ 1 billion is spent in better ways in other parts of our national health service, and every penny we spend always has to be paid for.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Is the Prime Minister aware of the carpet of lilies campaign currently being run by the Haemophilia Society on behalf of those haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C or AIDS as a result of contaminated blood products? Can he give an assurance that the Government will consider the society's requests for action and, in particular, the availability of the blood treatment product, recombinant, throughout the UK, and not just in Wales and Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: We are prepared to look at the blood treatment product and how we can help people in that situation. What I cannot offer my hon. Friend is support for the entire range of demands made by that campaign. We sympathise with it and we understand the problems that people face, but she will know that successive Governments have made it clear that there is a limit to the amount of compensation that we can pay.
    Matthew Green: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is strong public support for a West Mercia health authority, linking Shropshire with Herefordshire and Worcestershire? The Government, however, are consulting on four options. The first three options link Staffordshire with Shropshire and, surprisingly, option No. 4 links Staffordshire with Shropshire. Is that the Prime Minister's preferred method of consultation?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the options were put forward after consulting many people about them, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard the representations that he has just made.
    Rosemary McKenna: On Sunday in my constituency, a moving speech was made by the Rev. Shirley Bench, a Methodist minister from California, at the Kilsyth war memorial. Will the Prime Minister accept her thanks and those of millions of Americans for his support in the successful campaign and will he give the House details of how we will assist in delivering aid to Afghanistan to restore Afghan society as quickly as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, in my statement later I will provide details of the humanitarian help that we will give, but the strength and solidarity that many people in this country have shown with the United States of America has not just been of enormous comfort to people in America, but has shown the strength of the bilateral relations between our two countries. I am sure that what happened in my hon. Friend's constituency was replicated in many constituencies up and down the country.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the number of patients waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment has fallen or risen since he has been Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Overall, in-patient lists have gone down by around 100,000. It is true that there are certain categories where waiting times have risen, but overall they are down by over 100,000.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question, which is no great surprise, and gave us anything but the facts. My question was: has the number of patients from his lists of those waiting more than 12 months fallen or risen?
    The Prime Minister: I said it is correct that the numbers of patients in certain categories of waiting have risen, but overall the numbers of people waiting have fallen. Since our first year in government, when in-patient and out-patient lists went up as we were still abiding by the same financing regime as the previous Government, in-patient and out-patient lists have fallen.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not want to answer that question because the reality is that the number waiting a year has not just risen, but risen by more than 13,000. Even that does not tell the whole story, however. If we look around the country, we see that in Leeds there has been a fivefold increase, in Birmingham a 17-fold increase and in west Devon a 68-fold increase in the numbers waiting. The British Medical Association has already said that the Government will fail on the waiting lists initiative, and today even one of his Ministers said:
    "I think Labour are going to fail on health".
    Is not the reason why they will fail simply that, as ever, he and his colleagues put dogma before the needs of patients?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cited various constituencies and I am surprised that he did not mention his own, but I will do that. In-patient waiting lists are down by almost 4,000 in his health authority area. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in what he said about people waiting more than 12 months, but overall the numbers of people waiting for in-patient treatment have fallen by more than 100,000 and that meets our manifesto commitment. The only reason for that fall and for the fact that there are half a million more operations taking place in the health service today, the new hospital-building programme and the additional nurses and doctors is the extra spending that the Government are putting into the health service. What is the position of the Conservative party in relation to this extra spending? It opposes it. Yes, it is true that the BMA may criticise us over the health service, but the one group of people—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be no shouting.
    The Prime Minister: The BMA certainly can criticise us, but the one group of people who cannot is the Conservative party. The Conservatives are opposed to the very investment that can make the health service better.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Should not there now be an end to the bombing in Afghanistan, as many of the military objectives must have been achieved? The areas that are still dominated by the Taliban include many anti-Taliban forces and it must not

    857
    be easy to distinguish between the two operations. We are also approaching Ramadan and it would be of great benefit to the Islamic world to have a pause at this time.
    The Prime Minister: I can honestly tell my hon. Friend that the trouble with the point he is making is that its credibility would have been improved had he not been saying the same thing a week ago. Had we not carried on with the campaign to make sure that we targeted the front-line Taliban troops, we would not be in the position that we are in today where we can improve the humanitarian situation and set about the reconstruction of Afghanistan. It is important that we carry on until our objectives are delivered, but of course as the situation changes, we change the military package. That is precisely what we should do, but had we stopped when my hon. Friend first asked me to stop, we would not be in the position that we are in today, which is an important one to be in.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Prime Minister congratulate his constituent Brian Hunter, who was one of this morning's winners of the Lilly outstanding achievement awards for diabetes? Today is world diabetes day, so will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the national health service framework for diabetes is not now going ahead as planned in 2002?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join in the congratulations to my constituent, and I am delighted that he has received that award. Because of certain points put to the Government in representations from doctors and others, we are still in conversation with them about what is the best type of framework. The hon. Gentleman will know that we now have national health service frameworks operating across a range of different areas of disease. Those frameworks are very good and people welcome them, but they impose an additional work load on doctors. We are in discussion and consultation with GPs about the best way to proceed with the framework for diabetes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do that in such a way that the framework gains the support of the medical profession, whose members, after all, are the people who have to implement it.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Now that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are sorting out Railtrack—[Interruption]. May I ask that the Government now turn their attention to such operating companies as Virgin, which provides a deplorable service between London and north Wales? The service is getting worse week by week because of poor management and worn-out trains.
    The Prime Minister: Of course, that is precisely why it is important that we make the necessary changes in the structure of Railtrack. We must also make sure that any additional money we put into the railways gets to the front-line provision of better railways, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.
    Conservative Members shouted out a moment or two ago, but their transport spokeswoman was asked what a
    858
    Conservative Government would do, and whether they would agree to put in the extra money that Railtrack wanted. She said:
    "it's difficult at the moment to actually know exactly what it is that Railtrack was asking for".
    It is not difficult at all. Railtrack was asking for at least £1.7 billion extra. In effect, it was asking for a blank cheque from the Government. The difference between the Government and the Conservatives is that we believe that that money should go to the better provision of railways, and they believe that it should go in a subsidy to shareholders.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: In light of the unfortunate and confused statements by the Minister for Europe, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reaffirm the 1969 pledge that the constitutional status of Gibraltar will not be altered without the consent of the people who live there?
    The Prime Minister: The Government have reaffirmed that pledge, and so has my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to imply otherwise. Indeed, I reaffirmed it at the press conference held with Prime Minister Aznar on Friday. However, it is important that the Brussels process should go forward. There are genuine political and practical problems that we should discuss with Spain. We hope very much that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will participate. I think that it is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar that he does. That process should go forward because it is right for the interests of this country and of the people of Gibraltar.
    Chris McCafferty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Afghanistan has the second-highest rate of maternal mortality in the world? More that 50 Afghani women die every day from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, and one in four Afghani children die before they reach their fifth birthday. Now, only 5 per cent. of Afghani women can read and write. The Taliban did not allow women doctors, lawyers and teachers to work or girls to attend school. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will do everything that he can to ensure that Afghani women are represented at every level in discussions on the social, economic and political reconstruction of their country?
    The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes is quite right. Of course the women of Afghanistan should be involved in the discussions that will take place. I do not think that there is any group of people in Afghanistan with more to celebrate at the departure of the Taliban regime than Afghan women, who have been subject to brutal oppression over a long period of time. That is one reason among many others why it is good that the Taliban regime's days are numbered.
    Mr. Mark Francois: Following on from his very unconvincing answer a few minutes ago, can the Prime Minister explain why waiting times in accident and emergency units are longer than they were four years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that at all. Money is going in to accident and emergency departments—

    859
    indeed, virtually every accident and emergency department in the country has received special dedicated funds. That extra money is making a difference. Of course, it is Conservative policy to oppose the extra investment. They have learned absolutely nothing from the last Parliament, when they called continually for tax cuts on the one hand and extra investment on the other. At some point, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have to choose.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister rehearse for a few more moments what he had
    860
    to say on unemployment at the beginning of these exchanges? Is he aware that there would be more jobs knocking about if some of these Tories who have 400 jobs between them, moonlighting, spread them around? Is it not significant that the very day that the Leader of the Opposition opens his trap on this issue, it is the very week that the last Leader of the Opposition has just taken two more jobs?
    The Prime Minister: Not for the first time, I think what a loss my hon. Friend is to the Dispatch Box.

International Coalition Against Terrorism
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on events in Afghanistan.
It is now clear that the Taliban regime is in a state of collapse across Afghanistan. Carefully targeted coalition bombing of its front lines opened the way for the Northern Alliance to advance. The fall of Mazar-i-Sharif on 9 November was the key to the north. It accelerated defections from the Taliban, and allowed General Dostam and Mohammed Atta of the Northern Alliance to cut the lines of communication of the remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda troops in the north-east.
One after another, Taliban positions folded: Taloqan, Baghlan, Bamiyan. The major city in the west, Herat, fell without a fight, to Ismail Khan. Now we see that the strategy that we have pursued is equally successful in the Pushtun south of the country.
Kabul fell without serious resistance on Monday night. Key cities in the Pushtun south have followed Kabul swiftly, including Jalalabad. It is clear that support for the Taliban is evaporating. Although there may be pockets of resistance, the idea that this has been some kind of tactical retreat is just the latest Taliban lie. They are in total collapse.
There are reports today that senior Taliban figures in Gardez—including Borders Minister Haqqani and intelligence Chief Ahmadullah—have surrendered. Kandahar airport has reportedly been taken by anti-Taliban forces. I have to say that regrettable incidents have happened as the liberated people have turned on their oppressors, and they should not happen. I appeal to the Northern Alliance and all other forces in Afghanistan to be restrained, to avoid acts of revenge and to engage with the United Nations.
I believe that the whole House and country should welcome the progress that has been made. Although conflict is never easy or pleasant, to see women and children smiling after years under one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes in the world is finally to understand the true meaning of the word "liberation".
I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership that President Bush has given, and give heartfelt thanks to the British forces involved, now and in the future. There is no greater comfort to the British people than to know that we can call on some of the best armed forces in the world. Their work and their contribution to Britain's strength and international standing is immense.
I also pay tribute to European solidarity, to the countries of the European Union that have stood firm throughout this crisis and to our other coalition partners. However, there remain huge challenges—the military job is not yet done; Osama bin Laden is still at large, and so are his close associates; the diplomatic and political situation remains difficult; and the threat of an humanitarian crisis remains. The United Kingdom will continue to play a full role in the military, diplomatic and humanitarian aspects of this campaign, the objectives of which remain as set out in the document published in the House Library on 16 October.
862
So far, our forces have been involved in the air strikes using Tomahawk missiles and have provided support to US bombers. On the ground, our forces have been involved in liaising and working with the Northern Alliance, advising them and helping to co-ordinate action.
I can confirm to the House that several thousand of our troops are being put on 48-hour notice to move in case they are required in the area. Those include elements from 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault Brigades, including 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment and 45 Commando Royal Marines, as well as a range of supporting assets including RAF air transport, support helicopters, engineers, logistics teams and explosive ordnance experts.
For obvious reasons, I cannot give the House full details of how those troops may be used. Consultations with the United States and our other coalition partners continue. The main purpose of the troops would be in the context of multinational efforts to make safe the humanitarian supply routes that are now opening up as a result of military progress on the ground. Others may be focused on securing airfields and clearing unexploded ordnance, and on ensuring the safe return of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations to Afghanistan, thereby permitting the construction of the broad-based Government that is so badly needed.
The troops will remain in place for only a strictly limited period, while an international force to work alongside Afghan military commanders is prepared. We cannot, of course, rule out some of our troops being used in offensive front-line operations—40 Commando Royal Marines remain at a high state of readiness for contingency operations.
On the humanitarian front, an average of more than 2,000 tonnes of food a day has been dispatched since 4 November. That is four times the rate at the start of October, when it was about 500 tonnes a day. The World Food Programme is optimistic about reaching its targets: it has dispatched more than 50,000 tonnes of food to Afghanistan since the beginning of October—sufficient for 5 million people for one month. We look forward, however, to the opening of a corridor from the liberated areas to the borders with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. In particular, the Friendship Bridge between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan will be made safe for the passage of those supplies.
The UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross should now be able to improve delivery of food, health care and other assistance to 2 million vulnerable people in the northern region of Afghanistan. Plans are now being made for the international staff of the UN, the Red Cross and NGOs to return to Afghanistan. In addition, we will be able to accelerate deliveries to areas in central Afghanistan, which will become harder to access as winter sets in, so that sufficient stockpiles can be built up closer to the people who need them. That will further reduce the suffering of the Afghan people and, I hope, show the rest of Afghanistan that life for the entire nation will be better once the Taliban regime has gone.
The advance of the anti-Taliban forces has been assisted by defections from disillusioned Taliban supporters. It is time for the rest of Afghanistan—particularly the ethnic groups in the south—to join the uprising against the Taliban and throw off their oppressive rule. The sooner they act, the greater the benefit for all the people in Afghanistan.

863
The structure of post-Taliban Afghanistan will be for the Afghan people to determine. However, we will provide strong diplomatic and economic support to the aspirations of Afghan parties committed to an inclusive, democratic political structure, committed to the welfare of all Afghan men, women and children, and committed to providing substantial local autonomy.
I spoke to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, yesterday, and he outlined to me the process that will now be followed. The first step will be an early UN-convened meeting of representatives of the various Afghan anti-Taliban groups—including Pushtuns—under the UN special representative, Mr. Brahimi. This would lead to a transitional Administration. To support that process under Mr. Brahimi, the UN Security Council will be adopting a resolution to underpin the principles on which Mr. Brahimi is working.
The immediate next step is for the UN to establish a presence in Kabul. I am delighted that Mr. Vendrell, UN deputy special representative for Afghanistan, and Mike Sackett, UN humanitarian co-ordinator, plan to travel there on Friday. We plan to have a UK diplomatic presence in Kabul by the weekend. I have also spoken today to President Bush and to Chancellor Schroder. The coalition is as strong today as it has ever been.
In respect of the very basis of this action, we must never forget why we are engaged in it—it is because on 11 September al-Qaeda perpetrated the worst terrorist outrage in history. It is to bring it to justice and to eliminate it as a threat to world affairs that we have been and are acting as we are.
Today, I have put in the Library an updated version of the evidence document first published on 4 October. The new document will be translated into Arabic, Urdu and other languages. The intelligence material now leaves no doubt whatever of the guilt of Osama bin Laden and his associates. On 4 October, we knew that three of the hijackers were linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; now we know that the majority were. Indeed, the utterances from the al-Qaeda network and from bin Laden's own mouth leave no doubt: far from hiding their guilt, they gloat about it. On 9 October, one of bin Laden's spokesmen praised the 11 September atrocities as "a good deed", which
"transferred the battle into the US heartland".
He warned that
"the storm of plane attacks will not abate".
On 20 October, bin Laden said in an unbroadcast video tape:
"If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists."
They are terrorists, and history will judge them as such.
Before the history books are written, however, we will continue to hunt them down, and we will continue to do so for as long as it takes to bring them to the justice they deserve. They are guilty and they will face justice, and today, thankfully, they have far fewer places to hide and far fewer people who wish to protect them.
As we have made clear from the outset, the campaign against terrorism is much more than a military campaign—it is diplomatic, humanitarian, economic and legal. It has meant changing our laws to protect ourselves at home, and working with others to protect ourselves abroad.
864
Above all, at this moment, I say to the people of Afghanistan: "As we hunt down those terrorists who committed murder and as we hunt down those who are hiding in your country, they and not you are our enemy. This time, we will not walk away. Your future is in your hands, but our hands are there in friendship to help you to shape that future."
The people of Afghanistan have suffered grievously from a brutal regime, from conflict, from famine and from drought. We want to see a country with a Government representing all the people of Afghanistan, occupying a proud place in the community of nations, growing economically, enriching its people and liberating their potential. Frankly, a country that has suffered so much deserves no less than a fresh start.
Let us be clear—the way that the world embraces and supports the new Afghanistan will be the clearest possible indication that the dreadful events of 11 September have resulted in a triumph for the international community acting together as a force for good, and in the defeat of the evil that is international terrorism. I think that we all know now that a safer world is built, ultimately, out of secure countries representing all their people living in peace with their neighbours. That is how terrorism will eventually be defeated, and that, step by step, must be the new international order that emerges from the worst terrorist outrage in our history.
Whatever the challenges and whatever the setbacks along the way, I believe that is a vision and a world worth fighting for.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: We are grateful to the Prime Minister for responding to our and other requests for a statement this afternoon. May I start by saying that I join the Prime Minister in his warm and quite correct tribute to President Bush for the way that he has led and shaped the coalition?
Clearly, what has happened in Afghanistan during the past few days—as the Prime Minister has made absolutely plain—is a complete vindication of the strategy that has been pursued by the coalition, led to a great degree by the Prime Minister and his Government during the past four weeks. Had we heeded the calls of those who, for whatever reason, demanded a pause in the bombing, we would not have achieved the successes that have been achieved so far; nor would we be any closer to a situation in which effective humanitarian aid can be brought through. That is clear.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the general role of the coalition forces, including, as it appears, our own armed forces. The Opposition support the decision to place British troops on stand-by, ready to be deployed, if necessary, in Afghanistan, If the need arises for them to be deployed in areas such as Kabul and Mazar-i-Sharif, we will continue to support the Government in that decision.
I also associate myself totally with what the Prime Minister has said about our armed forces being the best in the world. We are in no doubt that whatever they may be called upon to do, they will do it with their customary professionalism, bravery and effectiveness, and the thoughts of all hon. Members must surely be with them and, moreover, their families, who wait with expectation for what may come.

865
We welcome the fact that the UN is now able to establish a presence in Kabul, as the Prime Minister said. However, there have been some mixed messages from the UN in recent days about its role or how it saw its role. Does the Prime Minister now feel confident that the UN is clear about its objectives and its role, as that could affect any deployment of our armed forces and the length of time that they may have to spend in Afghanistan?
We have now achieved our first objective—the removal of the Taliban Government from Kabul—yet we cannot afford to be complacent, as the Prime Minister said. The Taliban remain undefeated and dangerous in other parts of Afghanistan. Does the Prime Minister agree that, even as we enter the month of Ramadan, any let up in the coalition forces' campaign would be disastrous? Will he confirm that, beyond defeating the Taliban, our objectives still remain as they were—to bring bin Laden to justice, to dismantle the al-Qaeda terrorist network, to deliver effective aid and to wage war on international terrorism wherever it rears its head?
Having come so far, the last thing that we now need is for a power vacuum to be created in Afghanistan, into which people or groups could begin to take the law into their own hands. As the Prime Minister said, and as I know he is aware, the Northern Alliance is, in essence, an alliance perhaps in name only, and it cannot necessarily fill that vacuum. There is now an urgent need for the formation of a new broadly based Administration who can command widespread support in Afghanistan and who are committed to handing over bin Laden and to dismantling al-Qaeda, as the Prime Minister said.
The Prime Minister is also right, in case there is any doubt, to restate bin Laden's guilt by even adding to the charges that there were already. I must say that I have always been surprised by those who have said that they needed more evidence of his guilt than that already available. He was guilty as charged when we last discussed this issue; whatever else comes simply makes his guilt even more obvious.
The other immediate priority is to deliver aid to those in the refugee camps and others who have been displaced from their homes around the borders. As the key supply routes are opened up, and with the Taliban no longer in control, we have a very narrow window of opportunity to do that before the winter sets in. I hope that the Prime Minister will state, a little more clearly perhaps, some of the aspects of that aid in which we shall engage. We welcome what he has said about humanitarian aid in general. Does he agree that the point has been made that delivering aid was always dependent on defeating the Taliban, without which it would have been nearly impossible?
At the outset, the President of the United States described this as a war against international terrorism, and I have always believed that he was right. Surely one of the lessons of 11 September is that, if we fail to maintain the pressure on terrorism everywhere, we are all at risk. Last night, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said:
"We are clearly in this for the long haul. We need to find the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Taliban leadership to stop them. Then we need to address that network and other networks elsewhere in the world, but it will take time".
866
I totally agree with him, and I am sure that the Prime Minister does, too. The message must go out loud and clear: terrorism is not being tolerated now and it will not be tolerated in the future. The days of safe havens—wherever they are—are at an end.
No civilised country will any longer be allowed, or should be allowed, to foster groups such as the Taliban and allow them to use terrorism for their own twisted purpose. Therefore, does the Prime Minister agree that our long-term objective has to be the continued prosecution of the international campaign against terrorism, wherever it occurs and wherever it finds shelter?
The Prime Minister: I can be reasonably brief in my response because I think that we agree on all the main points. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he has given for the decision to put our armed forces on standby. I also agree with what he has just said about the importance of making sure that we defeat international terrorism in all its forms.
I wish to deal with two or three of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The first relates to the United Nations being clear about its objectives. Obviously, aspects are still under discussion, but, as I know from my conversations with the UN Secretary-General, the UN wants to do all that it possibly can to help. However, some difficult logistical and practical questions need to be resolved. We are in conversation with the Secretary-General about them, but the decision to hold a broad-based meeting of representatives of the Afghan people, and the decision of Mr. Vendrell and Mr. Sackett to go to Kabul as soon as possible, are an indication that the UN is moving with the necessary rapidity.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's point about the power vacuum shows precisely why the UN should move with rapidity; we do not want a power vacuum to open up. As I said in an interview with BBC Pushtun radio earlier today, it is important that people understand that the Government in Afghanistan must involve more than simply the Northern Alliance. There is a very clear understanding on that.
The final point relates to the guilt of Osama bin Laden. At the very beginning, there was a thought—not so much in this country, but certainly in other parts of the world—that, because this was a terrible terrorist act and because Osama bin Laden was the best-known terrorist in the world, we had merely decided that we would simply say that he was responsible. In actual fact, it was very clear that the acts of 11 September bore all the hallmarks of Osama bin Laden. It is now also clear that we can trace the majority of the hijackers to the al-Qaeda network. The intelligence evidence is now absolutely convincing about the complicity of al-Qaeda and bin Laden.
The document that we have placed in the Library today is an updated version of the previous document and provides a lot more intelligence detail about what we have discovered. We are now able to provide such detail. I hope that it is read not merely here but throughout the world in any situation where people have any doubt about bin Laden's guilt. Once people believe that he is guilty, we return to the question that has been at the heart of this from the beginning: do we let him get away with it, or do we pursue him? I think that most people—whatever their faith or country and whatever view they have of America, the west, the United Kingdom or any other country—

867
will understand that we had no option. Some 6,000 or more people were slaughtered in cold blood in America, so when we knew who was responsible, we had no option but to pursue them. We shall continue to pursue them until they are brought to justice.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the House will greet the Prime Minister's statement with a mixture of relief and apprehension given the current fast-moving situation. There is relief that tangible progress is now being made against the Taliban and towards the bringing to justice of bin Laden and the eventual elimination of his al-Qaeda terrorist network. Equally, however, there is apprehension based on the revulsion that many in this country and internationally have expressed about some of the atrocities that have been committed by the Northern Alliance. They have a bearing on the situation into which British forces may find themselves deployed in but a matter of days.
I make it clear on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that if and when British troops are deployed as part of the stabilisation force, they will have our full support in this most difficult and dangerous set of circumstances. Any such troop deployment must surely mark the beginning, not the end, of an integrated campaign on the ground further to isolate and ultimately to capture bin Laden.
May I ask the Prime Minister one or two specific questions about the British troops? Can he clarify under whose command they will be, and can he tell us more about the rules of engagement? For example, will the troops be able to intervene to stop atrocities that are under way, or will they be able to act only in self-defence? Can he also guarantee that all efforts will be made, beyond the UN Security Council resolution to which he referred, to secure a further resolution, so that if our troops are deployed, they are not viewed by the Afghans as taking one side of a civil war? That would lend still greater moral authority to the moral authority that we already possess in the action that we are undertaking.
In the longer tern, Britain and the United States will need to maintain pressure on the Northern Alliance, for reasons of common humanity and in terms of strategy towards establishing a broadly based, post-conflict Administration for Afghanistan as a whole. Does the Prime Minister agree that that must go hand in hand with giving support now to the refugee camps on the borders in Pakistan and Iran, and support later to the rebuilding of Afghanistan?
Finally, on wider issues, the Prime Minister is well aware of the pressures in Washington—opinion in the Administration—on President Bush to make the action in Afghanistan part of a wider action. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he will use his influence with the President to stop military action being expanded to include Iraq? In the likely long winter ahead, not least for our troops and the poor people of Afghanistan, all of us must hope that evil and insanity can yet give way to good and stability.
The Prime Minister: I shall work back through those points. In relation to any wider effort, as I have always said, there are two phases: the military action focused on Afghanistan and the need to pursue international terrorism
868
in all its different forms. That is a matter of investigating its financing, how terrorists move across frontiers and how they acquire their weapons. Any action will be the subject of discussion among the coalition.
As I said a few days ago, it is important that we get the military action completed in Afghanistan. I stress to the House that it is not yet complete. We still have many difficult things to do. We will make sure that we get help to the refugee camps in Pakistan and elsewhere. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has pointed out to me, the biggest need is inside Afghanistan, where it is far more difficult to get food and aid to people. That is the real problem. Of course, we want a new UN Security Council resolution which will give the necessary authority to the UN and to people acting under the UN to improve the situation.
In relation to UK troops, it is too early to discuss under whose command they will be or the rules of engagement. That will have to be decided when deployment takes place. Finally, in respect of the Northern Alliance, everyone knows that there are pictures in newspapers today, and so on. It is worth pointing out that in any situation, especially when people have suffered years of repression under the Taliban regime, there will be acts of revenge. I regret them. We do not condone them; we condemn them and ask that they do not happen. However, it is fair to say that many of the more exaggerated fears about what the Northern Alliance would do in Mazar-i-Sharif and in Kabul have not been fulfilled.
We, the Americans and other coalition partners have maintained close links at every level. I stress to the House yet again that the situation is difficult. There could be no more difficult place to undertake military action, to try to put together a new broad-based Government, and to mount a proper humanitarian effort when there are millions of refugees on the move. Those are all very difficult issues. On the military side, we have succeeded to a significant extent, but not yet fully. The political and humanitarian aspects remain immensely difficult, but we will do everything that we can to make sure that they, too, are brought to a successful conclusion.
David Winnick: Has not the lie been exposed—I hope for ever—that the coalition has been conducting an anti-Muslim crusade, bearing in mind how many people in the liberated areas are only too glad to see the end of the Taliban? Would it not be appropriate for the critics, be they in this House or outside, to accept that they were wrong, as they were about Kosovo? It would do no harm if they now recognised the error of their ways.
The Prime Minister: That is a very tempting offer, but in the interests of general harmony I shall refrain from accepting it. However, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point that is worth emphasising. I hope that, not merely in what is happening now but in the humanitarian and political actions that we take in Afghanistan, the whole of the Muslim world can see that we acted against terrorists—people who were abusing the true spirit and teachings of Islam. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, some years ago in Kosovo we were defending Muslims against oppression by a power that happened to be Orthodox Christian. However, the reason we acted then was not that they were Muslim, but that they were people who were suffering an injustice. There are many elements

869
that we should move forward once the conflict is over, but one of them is a far greater understanding between the different faiths in the world--in particular, a far greater understanding of Islam in the west and, perhaps, a greater understanding in Arab and Muslim countries of why we chose to act in the way in which we did and why we want nothing but friendship and fellowship with the Arab and Muslim world. I hope very much that, when the situation calms, we can get that message across and demonstrate it clearly by our actions as well as our words.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the Prime Minister and the Government on the way in which they have handled this matter. Today, a worrying survey has been published about UK Muslims, almost a third of whom have felt themselves to be subject to hostility and abuse. Clearly, it is utterly unacceptable to attack people for being Muslims. However, does he accept that it would be the wrong answer to introduce a new law on incitement to religious hatred and that we should instead concentrate on better enforcement of the laws that we already have?
The Prime Minister: On that last point, the difficulty, as I understand it, has always been that there is a gap in the law, because incitement to racial hatred is an offence but incitement to religious hatred is not. As the two can be very closely linked, it is felt to be right that that is a gap in the law that should be filled. I personally think that some of the objections that are made are very exaggerated in their claims about how great an interference such a law would be. Each case will be considered on its merits, but surely it should and must be unlawful for a Christian to incite the killing of Muslims or vice versa. I would have thought that that would be important. It is important that we fill the gap in the law.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some legitimate questions about how that poll was conducted. I believe, having talked to many Muslims in different parts of the country in the past few weeks, that many of them understand exactly why we have been acting. The one thing that was a clue from the people who were polled as to why they might hold their view was that more than 60 per cent. of them, I think, said that they were dubious about the guilt of Osama bin Laden. I hope very much that anybody who is doubtful about that will look at the evidence. They can get it perfectly easily; we make it available through our website. People can get that evidence and study it for themselves. Once they are convinced that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible, most people, unless they are entirely pacifist, which is a perfectly principled position, would accept that we had no option but to act as we did. We acted against bin Laden and in Afghanistan not because the people there were Muslims—far from it—but because the people who committed this atrocity were terrorists. We pursue them as terrorists in exactly the same way in which we pursue terrorists in any part of the world, whatever their religion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the leadership of Pakistan comfortable with the continuation of bombing during Ramadan? The Leader of the Opposition used the word "disaster". Would not the real disaster be nuclear devices in Pakistan falling into the wrong hands?
The Prime Minister: I agree that that would be a disaster; we can all agree about that. President Musharraf
870
did not call for a halt to the bombing, as was reported in some newspapers. He said that he wanted the action to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. We all want that. However, he also said that that had to be consistent with fulfilling the objectives.
One can take a principled position against the conflict and any form of action in Afghanistan, but one must accept the consequences: a terrorist network that is based, trains and is funded in Afghanistan, and has slaughtered 6,000 people in cold blood in the middle of the day in America, will be allowed to get away with it. There is no diplomatic solution to the al-Qaeda network; negotiations cannot be held with it.
Let us consider bin Laden's demands: obliterate Israel, kill all Jews, kill all Americans who support Israel, indeed all Americans. The United Kingdom and many other countries are probably also included in the list. Such people hold an extreme position. They also want the overthrow of any Arab regime that does not follow their fundamentalism. We cannot negotiate with them; we can either say that they can do what they want and get away with it or do what we can to prevent that.
We waited several weeks before we began the campaign to make the Taliban, which are an oppressive and hateful regime, choose. They made a choice, and it is increasingly obvious that it was impossible for them to separate themselves from al-Qaeda because they were effectively one and the same. Many people in Afghanistan objected not only to oppression by the Taliban and the terrible things that they did, but to their provision of a haven for people from outside the country from which they could export terrorism, much of it funded through the drugs trade.
Pakistan needs a stable and secure neighbour. It rightly wants a broad-based regime and its own strategic interest to be considered. It will be. President Musharraf has shown enormous courage. He has made the right decision for his people; that can already be demonstrated. I assure him that the commitments that we have made to the Government of Pakistan about the broad base of the regime and taking Pakistan's interests into account will he met in full.
Mr. John Taylor: I commend the Prime Minister for his international coalition building, and for sustaining the coalitions, but does he acknowledge any limit to the maxim,
"My enemy's enemy is my friend"?
The Prime Minister: I do, but if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Northern Alliance, it was necessary to support it in the way that we did
Kali Mountford: In the hourly changes in Afghanistan, is not it easy to forget that the purpose of being there is to pursue the guilty? Does my right hon. Friend know that Justice Scrivener QC has said that he would not convict a shoplifter on the evidence that we have shown so far? I thank my right hon. Friend for the evidence that he has placed in the Library, but does he believe that my constituents, who have also complained to me about the quality of evidence, will be convinced? On the day of reckoning when we are all held to account in a democracy, is my right hon. Friend convinced that we can say that we pursued the guilty?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point deserves an answer. I have not seen the comments to which she

871
referred. Let us leave aside the intelligence evidence—people may say that we are simply providing whatever evidence we want, although I believe that anyone who examined it would be convinced. Two other things are important. First, we have now traced the majority of the hijackers to the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan. That is where they were trained, where they came out of, and where they were connected to. One would have thought that that was hardly a coincidence.
Secondly, the best evidence since 11 September has increasingly come from what bin Laden and his spokesmen have said. People can read the full transcript of the video recordings of interviews that he has given. One might have thought that, if he was innocent, he would have been proclaiming his innocence and condemning the outrage. However, he has not done any of those things. On the contrary, he has said that it was absolutely the right thing to do, that he welcomed it, that the people who did it were heroes and, what is more, that he wants a lot more of it to happen. With the greatest respect to whoever it was who made the comment about the shoplifter, I think that although there is no convincing those who will not be convinced, if people study this matter, the evidence is clear and plain.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: It may well be necessary to deploy United States and United Kingdom troops as a stabilisation force in Afghanistan, and I will support that. None the less, should not that be a temporary measure, bearing in mind that the United States and the United Kingdom have been engaged in a conflict with the Taliban and are likely to continue to be so engaged? 1 will support that engagement, too. However, is it not necessary for a degree of evenhandedness to be perceived to exist in, for example, the Pushtun areas? We have given support in concert with the Northern Alliance. In those circumstances, should we not try to engage, as rapidly as possible, in the stabilisation force troops from countries that have not so far been engaged in the conflict, so that we do not put ourselves in an apparently divided role?
The Prime Minister: That is a perfectly reasonable point. We do not want UK troops to remain there in the long term. They are there simply to perform certain duties that they may be called on to perform, and they may be the only ones who can do that at the moment. There will be not only US and UK troops, but troops from other countries which have been part of the coalition; for example, France and other countries that have been involved already.
In the medium term—while the United Nations exercise is, hopefully, taking increasing control—it is entirely sensible that we involve other countries as well. Obviously, discussions are going on about what type of force could help in this situation. As I said in my statement, we need to be able to work alongside the Afghan military commanders to ensure that stability is restored to the country. We are well aware of the sensitivities there, and it is important that we take account of them.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As a Member of Parliament who has been to Afghanistan and seen the
872
way in which the people there are repressed, may I ask my right hon. Friend, his coalition and the United Nations to make sure that it is not only the Afghanis who are liberated, but the women, too?
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is right. Some of the people who are rejoicing most visibly today are the Afghan women who will no longer have to suffer quite appalling repression. Under the Taliban regime, they had no proper education and were excluded from many walks of life. Also, as I know from talking to women who have been in Afghanistan, they suffered the most brutal repression, including physical beatings for anyone who did not obey rules that are, on any basis, grossly unreasonable and wrong.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I wholeheartedly endorse what was said earlier about the United Nations. What does the Prime Minister envisage in terms of the United Nations intervention? Is it to involve a form of protectorate or trusteeship while the building of a broad-based representative Government goes ahead in Afghanistan? I also fully share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that there will now be a huge increase in the amount of humanitarian aid going into the country.
The Prime Minister: It is envisaged that the UN will help to facilitate the coming together of the new Afghan Government. That is the sensible limit of its ambition there. We shall, of course, try to step up the humanitarian aid now—although, in my view, it is only because of the military action that we are able to get the humanitarian aid into the country.
Joyce Quin: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he work with his coalition partners to try to ensure that, under any post-Taliban regime, the drugs trade does not start up again? Will he also update the House on the important financial measures needed to tackle the flow of funds to terrorists, particularly given that the Taliban received such large sums from terrorist sources?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has raised two important points. On the drugs trade, what we shall do in helping with the reconstruction of Afghanistan is make it clear that we want Afghanistan to develop farming—of proper agricultural produce, not produce for the drugs trade—and business, so that they can grow again in a legitimate way. That will take some time, but as I was told when I was in Pakistan a few weeks ago, Pakistan used to have a very active drugs trade but it closed it down with the help of measures taken with the international community. So it is not impossible for a country that has been involved in drugs to shut down its drugs trade, and we must work to ensure that Afghanistan does that.
In respect of financial measures, we need first to make it clear to countries that have been somewhat lax in enforcing their laws on financing terrorists that we shall not tolerate that. Secondly, we must tighten up provisions on money laundering and the disclosure of information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been working on that and there has been international agreement at an EU level and, I am sure, at other international levels.
Patrick Mercer: I congratulate the Prime Minister and our armed forces on the efforts made and

873
the successes enjoyed. However, may I enjoin him to look carefully at the specialist reservists? More than a month ago, 150 were called for, but so far only 13 have volunteered. Can measures he taken to encourage and protect them further with legislation?
The Prime Minister: We shall do what we can in that regard. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is immensely important that we do everything possible to acknowledge the contribution that has been made. There are practical issues that we need to get right, but I am sure that with good will and discussion we can do that.
Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister has rightly condemned excesses by the Northern Alliance in retribution, which is now going on in Kabul and other cities. What influence and pressure are being put on the Northern Alliance to cease those activities? How quickly can the UN command take over, so that it is clear that the Northern Alliance is not running the show, but somebody else is? In analysing the whole situation, will he encourage the US Administration to sign up to the International Criminal Court convention so that we have a future based on law rather than solely on the use of military force?
The Prime Minister: This country's position on the International Criminal Court is clear; America's position is up to it. Irrespective of any court's existence, the military action would still have been right. We have made it clear to the Northern Alliance that we want no reprisals or revenge killings against the civilian population. In many ways, that has happened to a lesser degree than people might have expected. Of course we want to ensure that the UN is as effective as possible in the interventions that it makes.
Mr. John Burnett: Events in Afghanistan, and over many years, have emphasised the importance to this country of British forces' expeditionary capacity. I agree with the Prime Minister that our armed forces are second to none and that, furthermore, they must have the best and sufficient equipment and ships. Currently, we have two assault ships and only one helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean, which is in refit. Will the Prime Minister consider urgently the ordering of a second helicopter carrier so that one is always available?
The Prime Minister: To answer the hon. Gentleman plainly, I am not in a position now to give him assurances on that; the armed forces Minister is beside me and I have no doubt that he has heard what was said. We currently have, I think, one of the largest naval programmes ever. However, I shall have to leave the hon. Gentleman's specific representation to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Donald Anderson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of victory, however great, are infinitely preferable to the problems caused by defeat? As we turn from the speed of the military advance to the political track, could he give the House an update on the draft resolution that is now being debated at the United Nations? What will it say, for example, about security? Could he also be a little more clear about the
874
British forces that are on 48-hour stand-by? When they go—with French, German, Italian and Spanish forces—under whose command will they be?
The Prime Minister: The difficulty is that we have not yet decided the precise nature of the command because we have not yet finalised not only what our troops but what other troops will do. Obviously, I hope that the House will understand that the situation has moved very fast in the past 48 hours. The requirements, too, are moving very fast. We may now be able to go to parts of the country that we could not go to before, and we may no longer need to go to other parts of the country where we thought that we might be required. Very many issues still have to be decided.
As for the United Nations resolution, it is obviously important that we get the most broad-based regime possible and that the international community—which has been remarkably solid in the action that has been undertaken—remains solid. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) is entirely right in saying that the problems of having been effective in Afghanistan are far more welcome than the problems that we might have had otherwise. I think that, if we do this in the right way, it opens up the possibility of making real progress not only in Afghanistan but in many difficult areas of the world.
Since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the good news that at Doha a new round of World Trade Organisation negotiations has been launched, which is a very important development. I understand that the agenda for the trade round has been agreed. It would have been difficult to foresee that success even a short time ago. However, immense work has been done and there is far greater will in the international community to try to solve some of the problems facing us. That trade round will be important to world trade and to our economy, even though it may seem very distant to jobs and living standards here on the streets of Britain, because if we manage to get the trade round under way, it will open up new prospects for our business and for investment. It will also hugely help some of the poorest countries in the world.
Sir John Stanley: Although I greatly welcome the military progress that is being made, does the Prime Minister agree that the collapse of the Taliban in itself does not necessarily constitute any reduction in the terrorist threat? Will he therefore assure the House that there will be absolutely no let-up in the intensity of the efforts being made both nationally and at the United Nations, under the British ambassador's chairmanship, to strengthen our national defences against terrorism and deal with those individuals who may be conspiring to commit the next act of terrorism before they are able to engage in another act of mass murder?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that. It is important that we recognise that the closing down of that terrorist network is not complete. We do not know, for example, what planning it had put in place even before 11 September. Although I doubt that it is able to plan much at the moment because of the position it is in, we simply do not know what it may have done prior to 11 September or immediately

875
after the acts of 11 September. It is important that we do not relax our guard for one instant in the fight against terrorism here and abroad.
Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the progress that has been made in the past 48 hours and his emphasis on aid and the need to ensure that Afghanistan has a Government in whom all the people of Afghanistan have a stake. I also welcome his comments on the suspicions about the west that sometimes exist in parts of the developing world. That was why he was right to go to the middle east. Does he agree that, if our words are to be taken seriously, we must redouble our commitment to bring a just peace to the middle east and show that our commitment to United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 is no less than our commitment to other United Nations resolutions relating to other parts of the world?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important, if we possibly can, to restart the process—the search for a durable peace in the middle east. I have no doubt at all that that is important. I also have no doubt at all that the process should be based on the two fixed points of principle that we have talked about over the past few weeks. One is the state of Israel—secure and confident in its own borders, accepted by its Arab neighbours and accepted in its right to exist by its Arab neighbours. The second is a viable Palestinian state where the people can live together, side by side, in justice and equality.
I am sure that whatever happens over the next few weeks and months, at some point people will have to come back to the relaunch of that process, and there is no better time to do it than now.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will the Prime Minister find time today to pay tribute again to Squadron 39, the reconnaissance squadron based at RAF Marham? Is he aware that it is currently based in Oman, and experiencing extremely tough, gruelling conditions in the desert there? Day in day out, they are flying over theatre, taking aerial photographs and risking their lives. They are very, very brave men.
Is the Prime Minister also aware of concerns about defence expenditure when the conflict has come to an end? Will he do all he can to ensure that our armed forces are properly funded in the future?
The Prime Minister: I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of Squadron 39, and indeed to all others that have been involved in the action. Reconnaissance in these circumstances has of course been a dangerous and difficult mission.
As for defence spending more generally, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have now had the first real-terms rise for many years. What this conflict has shown, once again, is not just the strength of our armed forces in terms of what they can do by way of defending our country, but that they are an enormously important part of Britain's standing in the world and of what we can do. As I have often said, I think that our defence forces
876
are invaluable in themselves in defending our country and doing the traditional work of defence forces; but they are also a very important part of this country's foreign policy.
Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the supply of humanitarian aid and the deployment of the United Nations force will continue even after the formation of the next Afghan Government, on a long-term, structured basis and not just as a short-term answer to the current situation, to allow the people of Afghanistan to lead a normal life?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. We will ensure that that humanitarian commitment is there for the medium and the long term.
I read my hon. Friend's article recently—I think it was in The Observer. I thought that his argument constituted the best defence of why we are taking this action, and why it was important and right, irrespective of one's faith—Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu—for the action to be supported. I thought that the article was one of the best things I had read throughout the entirety of the conflict.
Tony Baldry: Way back in August, the United Nations co-ordinator for Afghanistan reported
"what we are seeing unfold in 2001, which will without doubt continue through the first half of 2002, is not only a catastrophe. but also a gradually cumulative humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions. Conflict, drought. displacement, grinding poverty and human rights abuses add up to a deadly combination, a chain reaction of misery upon misery."
Did the Prime Minister note that?
It is important always to realise that under the Taliban, way back, there was going to be a humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan. Can the Prime Minister assure us that, long after the television cameras and the journalists have disappeared from Afghanistan, the United Kingdom will continue to provide humanitarian and development aid for the restructuring of that country?
The Prime Minister: I totally agree that that is the test of our commitment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to point out that this is a humanitarian crisis that was going on long before 11 September, partly for natural reasons but partly because of the appalling nature of the Taliban regime. It is important that we stay with the commitments we have made, and recognise that helping Afghanistan to become a stable and secure partner in the region is not merely in the interests of people in Afghanistan but—as we can see from what happened as we let Afghanistan decline and descend into chaos—in our own interests too.
Mr. Win Griffiths: May I reassure my right hon. Friend that, in addition to the relief and apprehension that we all must feel, as expressed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, there was joy in my heart and that of many others on Friday evening to hear that there had been movement on the ground to signal the beginnings of the end of the Taliban? I feel really happy that, so far, the movement has been very positive in getting rid of the Taliban and setting the scene for the delivery of aid and the development of a future far better than anything that Afghanistan has had over the past 30 years.

877
Will the agenda that my right hon. Friend laid out so persuasively at the Labour party conference and here in London this week now become a focus for the United Nations, to deal with the major problems not only of the middle east but of many other areas in the world, such as, to mention only two, Zimbabwe and Sudan?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that most people will have welcomed what has happened in the past few days. The military success on the ground allows the political and humanitarian work to proceed in a much more coherent way. That is important and we must build on it. The challenge, however, is still formidable on both fronts—political and humanitarian—and there is no point in disguising that.
On the broader global agenda, I hope that we can make progress. We are working very hard with African countries on the new Africa initiative. It is very important to ensure that, by the time of the G7/G8 summit next year, we have a viable plan for economic and political development in Africa, led by Africa itself. The concept of partnership is there, and it should be seized on. I hope that, today more than ever before, people understand that international issues can be domestic issues, too.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Following the answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), does the Prime Minister agree that those who have been crying out for humanitarian aid should be leading the van of thanksgiving for the successes that have happened, because if the Taliban had remained in power, the people who really needed help would not have got it?
Will we equip fully for winter conditions our forces that will be in Afghanistan?
Is the Prime Minister convinced that the al-Qaeda network has not moved out? What about the suggestion that bin Laden himself may have moved on to Somalia? Can we have an assurance that there will be no pulling back and that international forces will continue to pursue him until they bring him to justice?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: it is only because we have been able to secure places on the ground militarily that we can put in the humanitarian aid where we need to.
Our troops will be properly equipped for anything that they may do there.
We believe that Osama bin Laden and the main al-Qaeda network are still in Afghanistan. It is true that, prior to 11 September. various parts of the organisation and terrorists connected with it were in different parts of the world. That is why it is important that we ensure that, wherever they are, they are hunted down. They have shown by their acts how dangerous they are.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I thank the Prime Minister for his timely statement. In the light of what he has said, will he reconsider, even at this late stage. the perceived necessity for clauses 21 to 27 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we are to debate next week, which allow for imprisonment with neither charge nor trial? Precisely why is it thought necessary to preclude any appeal to any court on matters of fact, by way of either habeas corpus or judicial review?
The Prime Minister: I think that I can answer those questions. I am afraid that we believe that it is right to
878
take those powers for the reasons that I gave to the leader of the Liberal Democrats earlier. The choice is simple. There is no doubt at all that there are suspected terrorists—I have dealt with such cases myself—who have entered this country who cannot be deported to their own countries because of legal decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which are binding on this country irrespective of whether the European convention has been incorporated into British law. Those people have been released here, even though in some instances the courts have accepted that those people were involved in terrorist offences and were plotting more. There are not many of those people.
We must present evidence to the appointed commission, which will be headed by experienced people—lawyersand we will have to present it in private, because of its confidential nature. It will be a small number of cases, presented in circumstances in which we genuinely believe that our national interest is at risk or that of other countries. There is no alternative, other than saying, "That's fine, they are going to be let out, can stay here and do what they wish to do." There is no alternative to that.
The second reason why it is important that we take this action is that the one question I have found impossible to answer when having conversations with other world leaders is when they say to me, "You want us to join this great coalition against international terrorism, but you have people in your country who want to commit acts of terrorism in our country, and you are doing nothing about it." I have not yet found a convincing answer to that and I genuinely believe that it is right, in very specific circumstances, to take exceptional action. If we do not do that, we will put our own people at risk. The people who would abuse our laws and hospitality would put many more people at risk, because they have no compunction about what they do. Secondly, if that small group of people get away with being here and plotting their acts of terrorism, with nothing being done about them, they make life a lot more uncomfortable for the vast majority of asylum seekers who come in through the proper immigration procedures and who deserve to be treated well and with respect.
Mr. Michael Weir: The Prime Minister said in his statement that part of the troops that may be deployed in 48 hours is 45 Commando, which is based in my constituency. I am pleased to see that the mission will be, at least initially, a humanitarian one, but is the Prime Minister aware of reports this morning that both the former president and former king of Afghanistan are travelling to Kabul, possibly to vie for power? I noted that the Prime Minister said in his statement that he had links at all levels with the Northern Alliance and although I do not expect him to give me any details of discussions, can he assure me that discussions with the Northern Alliance have been held and that it agrees with the need to deploy troops, whether from the UK or the UN, in those areas that it has recently seized from the Taliban, so that there will be no problem once the troops have been sent to Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to 45 Commando Royal Marines and the work they do, which is ery important. I do not think that any one can give guarantees in this situation, but it is correct that we are in discussion with all the different parties in Afghanistan and the work

879
is being co-ordinated and led by the United Nations. The best chance of success is in the efforts being made by Mr. Brahimi, who is the designated special envoy for the United Nations. I believe that he can be successful, but I emphasise again—I hope that I have done so sufficiently this afternoon—that the military conflict is not yet over, because our objectives have not been achieved, and the humanitarian and political challenges are formidable. However, the fact that they are formidable does not mean that they do not have to be overcome.

Point of Order
4.39 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know better than anyone in the House that it is one of Parliament's sacred duties to defend the freedoms that are enjoyed—freedom of speech, of association and of religion—including the freedom to be tried before being detained. You will be aware that on Monday an order will be discussed, probably after 10.30 pm, that pertains to that last precious freedom. Unless the procedures of the House are adjusted—and it is within the Government's power to do so—that order will be debated next Monday but will not be voted on until Wednesday. It will be subject to a deferred vote.
Many of us feel that deferred votes are important, particularly after the way in which the business of the House was abused last year. None the less, there must be certain items that the House feels are of the utmost importance and deserve a vote immediately after the debate. Will you use your usual channels to find out whether appropriate means of reaching a decision on this matter can be found and a vote taken immediately after the debate on Monday?
Mr. Speaker: I have no powers in these matters, but the hon. Gentleman will know who does. He should take the matter up with the appropriate Minister.

Motor Vehicles (Prohibition on Use of Hand-held Mobile Telephones)
4.40 pm
Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a motor vehicle; and for connected purposes.
I was inspired to move this Bill by a councillor in my constituency. Councillor Geoff Cheetham, who serves the Eden ward on Rossendale borough council and who asked me, "When are you MPs going to do something about people talking on mobiles while they are driving?"
There can be no hon. Member who has not at some time witnessed someone at the wheel of a motor vehicle who is at the same time conducting a conversation on a hand-held mobile telephone. Indeed, there may be hon. Members who have committed what is already technically an offence under sections 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I am pretty sure that I am one of them. Historically, the Government have argued that the legislation is wide-ranging enough to include mobile phones as the highway code already contains in paragraph 127 advice on driving and using the phone. It states:
"you must exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Never use a hand held mobile phone or microphone while driving."
I believe that in the long term it is right to consider a generic offence to cover the use of mobile phones while driving and any other technologies that may emerge in the not-too-distant future. That view is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety. Indeed, a similar law was enacted in the state of New York as recently as 1 November this year. New York is the first US state to enact such legislation, but more than 30 other states are reported to have introduced similar legislation during this year. There are also moves in the United States to introduce a Bill to impose a national ban on the use of mobile phones while driving.
In New South Wales too, there is now a law that states quite explicitly that the driver of a vehicle must not use a hand-held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving. Korea has now followed suit and I understand that the Government of the Irish Republic are considering doing the same.
Some may argue that our present laws are sufficient to deal with this problem, but I believe that we know from our daily experiences that they are not. As recently as July this year the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents called for a specific offence to ban the use of mobile phones while driving. It called for new legislation to make it crystal clear that mobile phones should be switched off while drivers are at the wheel.
ROSPA estimates that there have now been at least 16 deaths on British roads in which a mobile phone has been implicated, and that this could be the tip of the iceberg. It is only when someone is killed that the problems associated with mobile phones and driving are highlighted as there is no specific offence related to mobile phones and driving. It is therefore impossible to keep track of how often they are a major factor in accidents. It is possible that hundreds of accidents may be
882
caused by the use of mobiles and that that is going unrecorded. Text messaging is the latest craze and poses a new threat to road safety.
A brief report in The Observer of 8 July stated:
"One of the most alarming sights on our road is a driver, mobile phone crooked in shoulder, chattering endlessly, oblivious to other traffic. Inevitably accidents occur."
Cars are struck, and people are run over. Driving and phones can kill, as US academics made clear four years ago when they found that mobile telephone use made accidents four times more likely. Research in the United States also claims that to speak on a mobile telephone while driving is as dangerous as drink driving.
New York has had enough and has outlawed the practice. I believe that it is high time we did the same because no one, regardless of how competent a driver someone claims to be, can hold a phone, dial a number, conduct a conversation and be in complete control of a car or lorry. It is simply not the same as having a conversation with a passenger or listening to a tape or the radio. It takes less than a split second for a lapse in concentration to result in an accident. It must therefore be made crystal clear to drivers who insist on behaving in this way that they endanger the safety of the public generally, and their own safety too.
That is why I am seeking leave to introduce this Bill today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Janet Anderson, Mr. John McFall, Ms Bridget Prentice, Mrs. Betty Williams, Jim Dowd, Mr. Paul Keetch, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Siôn Simon, Andy Burnham, Lawrie Quinn and Barbara Follett.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PROHIBITION ON USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES)
Janet Anderson accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence to use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving a motor vehicle; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 50].

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)) and Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
That—
1. The matter of the Pre-Budget Statement and its implications for Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
2. The Committee shall meet on Wednesday 28th November at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) and to consider the matter of the Pre-Budget Statement and its implications for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 28th November at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee—[Mr. Kemp.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill

    Clause 1
    EXCLUSION OF CANDIDATE SELECTION FROM 1975 ACT
    4.48 pm
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—
    '(2A) This section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
    '(2A) This Article applies to arrangements made by a registered political party which, in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area, confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent or substantially equivalent merits to a male candidate but only if such candidatures are the subject of an assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates, including their relationship with that specific geographical area.'.
    Mr. Lansley: On Second Reading, the Bill received a welcome across the House. It was rightly said that the Bill was short and relatively simple, but important. I support it, and the amendments are not intended to reduce that support.
    On Second Reading and in Committee many Members applauded the fact that the Bill is permissive in intent, but by switching off the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 it allows the discretion given to political parties to be used to do various things. It became increasingly clear to me in Committee, and I hope that it will become clear to other right hon. and hon. Members, that the Bill runs the risk of reintroducing to this area of law and practice by political parties many of the uncertainties that arose from the Jepson case in 1996, and we would do well to remove them.
    Amendment No. 4 is designed to apply to Great Britain and amendment No. 3 to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. Amendment No. 4 would set a limit on the circumstances in which positive discrimination may be exercised in favour of women. It would ensure that when a single member was being elected for a specific geographical area—that would generally mean individual Members of Parliament elected for a specific Westminster constituency or, in local government, single members elected for a ward—while a woman could be given preference in the selection over a man who had equivalent merits, all the candidates for the post, including men, should be subject to an assessment. Account should be taken of the candidates' personal circumstances, including their relationship with the

    885
    specific geographical area. It may not necessarily be obvious, but the effect would be to exclude the application of all-women shortlists in parliamentary constituencies. Men would no longer be excluded from consideration for selection by political parties in areas where they live, regardless of their merits.
    On Second Reading, when I was, frankly, less informed than I have become, I argued that although the Bill switched off the provisions of the 1975 Act that apply to the selection of candidates by political parties, it might none the less become subject to intervention by the courts on the strength of the adoption of the new equal treatment directive, or even the old one. The Minister confidently assured me that as the measure applied to elections and not to appointments, that would not be the case. However, in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I cannot give an absolute guarantee because the European Court of Justice could ultimately decide the question differently … However, even if the court decided that candidate selection fell within the equal treatment directive, the hon. Gentleman—
    the Minister was referring to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is in his place—
    "will be aware that measures under the directive and the treaty … allow for positive action."
    He said later in that short debate:
    "We expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 27.]
    I do not doubt that the Minister was being both prudent and accurate, but in doing so he highlighted the problem to which I partially referred on Second Reading and which we explored in greater detail in Committee. If a court held that the equal treatment directive applied, it might apply to the measures adopted by political parties—the test of proportionality. That test was summarised in a commentary on the European Court of Justice ruling in Abrahamsson and Anderson v. Fogelqvist in July 2000, in which it was held that it was
    "permissible to confer preference on a female candidate who possesses equivalent merits to a male competitor, provided that the candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment that takes account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."
    I hope that it is clear that the language chosen for the amendment rests directly on that used to express the test of proportionality that a court might choose were it to apply the equal treatment directive to positive action measures taken under the legislation.
    When I questioned the Minister in Committee, he said that he wanted to make it clear that
    "providing the remedy is proportionate to the wrong that it is seeking to address, political parties should be able to introduce measures such as we have discussed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 November 2001; c. 28–29.]
    In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman, regardless of his confident declarations on the inapplicability of the equal treatment directive, was none the less contemplating the possibility that under the Bill political parties would have to act in a proportionate manner. Most of us would want to do so, but the question is, if political parties—in this instance the Labour party—go down that path, will it be regarded as proportionate by a court?
    The Government maintain that the judgment applies to a post, but not to the selection of a candidate. I am still not persuaded by their argument. If the Jepson case demonstrated anything, it was that the selection of
    886
    candidates by political parties effectively puts those parties in the position of qualifying bodies under section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act. By extension, I see no reason why a court, in assessing whether people receive equal treatment when taking up a vocational activity or occupation under the directive, would not hold that the selection of candidates is integral to the process of securing employment.
    The purpose of the amendments is pre-emptively to apply a test of proportionality to the positive action that the Bill will enable political parties to take, thus removing the uncertainty about the extent to which they can take action. They will then no longer need to undertake expensive legal inquiries and test cases, with all that they entail, to establish the law on positive action of this sort.
    It is not only the equal treatment directive that might impact on positive action measures. If I have read the notes to the Human Rights Act 1998 correctly, protocol 12 to the convention—I do not know whether the Government intend to sign it—which creates a freestanding right to equality looks to a right of member states to take
    "measures to promote full and effective equality, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for these measures".
    A court might regard such a test—of objective and reasonable justification—as being similar to the proportionality test. In those circumstances, the European Court of Human Rights might, separately, look to some of the jurisprudence in the European Court of Justice in order to establish the relationship between those principles and their application to these matters.
    5 pm
    If the Bill is designed to permit political parties to take positive action and the Labour party wants to pursue all-women shortlists, it runs the risk of legal challenge. Although I have not succeeded in tempting the Minister on this point, it would none the less be helpful if he were to tell us whether the Labour party wants to re-introduce all-women shortlists.
    The Liberal Democrats debate whether or not they want such shortlists. The hon. Member for North Cornwall may be able to tell us a little more about that. He certainly seemed to imply that although the Liberal Democrats might be tempted in the direction of all-women shortlists, they were deterred by the possibility of legal challenge. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, like Conservative Members, wonders whether a legal challenge would ensue and doubts that this is a sensible measure for a political party to pursue.
    The purpose of the amendment is to remove uncertainty about a legal challenge. It is also intended to establish that there should be limits—never mind the European legislation—to the extent to which positive action is taken by political parties in order to secure greater equality.
    Two wrongs do not make a right. In this case, the wrong that we want to remedy—the lack of balance in representation in the House—will not be appropriately remedied if we introduce another wrong by discriminating in such an overt and extreme fashion against men. That would occur in specific circumstances—for example, where a man wanted to be selected as a candidate for the area in which he lived.

    887
    We are talking about only those circumstances in which somebody wants to be selected as a candidate for the area where they live and where that constituency offers them a unique opportunity for election.
    Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many people who seek selection are also able to do so in an adjoining area? Often, they are in a borough, county or area where there is some choice of seats. It is not always, or even usually, a specific and sole seat for which a person wants to be selected. Does he agree that many Members—of whom I am not one—have never lived in their own constituency?
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as she takes me to the points that I wanted to make, although I am not with her on her latter point. I live in my constituency and am happy to do so. However, I understand her first point: people who want to be elected to this place do not necessarily seek selection as a candidate in the place where they previously lived or currently live. Indeed, I did not live in South Cambridgeshire before I sought selection as a candidate for that constituency, but that fact does not remove the principle. For example the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor)—he is no longer in his place, but he put a question at Prime Minister's questions—secured election as an Independent Member of Parliament. He secured election to the House on behalf of the place where he lives.
    One might argue that the hon. Gentleman would not be affected by the measure because it deals with political parties, but is not the basis on which political parties select prospective Members of Parliament increasingly being influenced by the fact that they live in a particular place? In previous debates, the former Home Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, seemed to think that selection by political parties was all and that the merits of individual candidates were nothing, but that is not true of individuals. It was not true at the last election, and it will not be true in future, so it will be more important for political parties to select candidates who have links with the specific geographical area that they wish to represent.
    Joan Ruddock: According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, if a seat has historically been held by one political party and all the evidence suggests that it will not change hands, a prospective Conservative candidate who lives in a traditionally Labour-held area could never become a Conservative candidate with any hope of success. Is he saying that those men should never consider becoming a Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Lansley: No, I am not, but it is perfectly reasonable and entirely logical for people to seek selection as parliamentary candidates in the place where they live, and if they cannot do so they may well seek selection elsewhere.
    Under what circumstances should we introduce a form of discrimination—a bar on such people seeking selection as a candidate in the place where they live? If I were a Conservative living in a strong Labour constituency the
    888
    electorate would impose that bar on me. That is fair enough. In those specific circumstances, the hon. Lady advocates—but I oppose, under the amendment—telling a man that whatever his individual merits he is not good enough because a woman has to be selected for the constituency. He might have lived in the area for a long time, served as an elected representative and been the leader of the local council.
    Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for many years women have sought selection in their home areas but have not succeeded, as the composition of the House shows? Does he agree that, in effect, that has been a bar to women becoming Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Lansley: I have no doubt that that is precisely why the experience of all political parties is that such discrimination has occurred. The amendment is not intended to dispute the fact that women of equivalent, or substantially equivalent, merit to men have not been selected when they should have been. The issue is that Labour Members want to use the Bill to disbar a man from being selected even where he has far greater merit as a candidate by virtue of his specific personal circumstances, his relationship with a constituency and on the grounds of any objective assessment. That is wholly undesirable. In fact, not only is that inequitable, but it runs the risk of bringing into disrepute the positive action that needs to be taken to redress the lack of representativeness in the Chamber.
    It is clear that my party needs to take further action, and in my view some of our ideas will make a substantive difference. If we were to contemplate introducing women-only shortlists, the process of trying to secure greater representation by women would be brought into disrepute. That is one of the reasons why we did not succeed in the past. The Conservative party sought women-only shortlists, but the Labour party's actions in the early 1990s were seen as inequitable and discriminatory and they brought into disrepute the adoption of such measures by the Conservative party.
    Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the Labour party introduced all-women shortlists, it took a regional approach, introduced the lists on the basis of consensus and applied them to only half its target seats? Contrary to his suggestion, our approach was not draconian. It applied to only a very few seats.
    Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. The issue is what the Bill should allow people to do. If the hon. Lady is saying that it should not be used to create all-women shortlists that apply in a specific constituency, I agree with her. Furthermore, if she is suggesting that the Labour party should be able to introduce all-women shortlists on a regional basis through some form of twinning, I point out that twinning would still be acceptable under my amendment.
    Perhaps the hon. Lady and the Minister will support the amendment because it would allow twinning to take place. If a couple of constituencies worked together, they would assess the merits of a man for selection in a particular geographical area—namely either of those constituencies—but they would select one woman and one man. That would be permissible under the amendment, as such an approach

    889
    would be proportionate. However, it would not be proportionate for a man who on any objective basis is better qualified to be debarred from selection for an individual constituency.
    Llew Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that, under his amendment, twinning would be acceptable, but I am not sure that he understands how it worked in reality. I understand the process because I am from Wales. Two constituencies would be twinned with one another and they would agree to be represented by one man and one woman. Under the system, a man could have double or treble the votes of a woman and a woman could have double or treble the votes of a man, but that person still might not be selected. The right of individual constituencies to select who they wanted was taken away. A constituency might overwhelming vote for a man or for a woman but, because of the system of twinning, its choice could be thrown out and a person of the. other sex brought in.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because his view balances those expressed by other Labour Members. However. I do not go as far as he does. It is possible to devise a system of twinning that is proportionate and that would be acceptable under the Bill as amended by amendment No. 4. He refers to the votes cast in an individual constituency—that is the determining factor in any system adopted in the Conservative party—but that is not the same as an assessment of the merits of the candidates and their specific personal circumstances.
    Under my amendment, a court would not only have to consider the preferences of members of an association—that is one factor—but assess whether a candidate who had a close relationship with an area and had substantially better merits than anyone else but who had been debarred from selection had had his merits objectively assessed.
    Virginia Bottomley: I am in my hon. Friend's debt, because he has tabled an important and interesting amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that some hon. Members have not understood the significance of the amendment because—I do not wish to be provocative—the Labour party's tradition is much more authoritarian? The trade union culture of imposing rules and regulations is very different from the Conservative party's tradition, which is much more liberal, much more permissive and much less likely to be imposed from the centre. In the past, the Labour party had a serious problem because it was so dominated by the trade unions. It was very male and very white. However, using a pretty authoritarian approach, it changed the rules for women, and denied the interests of individual members in doing so. Is it not the different traditions that explain why Members on either side of the House have misunderstood each other?
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I expect that our different traditions do explain some of the attitudes prevailing in each party. The response of the Labour party to any problem is to create a central directive that will remedy the matter. The intention in the
    890
    Conservative party was always to try to work with the most relevant local organisation in order to secure the objective through consent.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Lansley: I will give way when I have responded to my right hon. Friend.
    The objective in the Conservative party will always be to work through consent and in a democratic process involving members of local associations. I know that if my party responds positively to the legislation, it will do so in a way which none the less retains the ability of a constituency association to judge individual candidates on their merits. The system about which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I spoke earlier this year would allow a man who had a specific connection with a geographical area and substantial merits leading to his possible selection as a candidate in that constituency still to be considered by the association, regardless of shortlists.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has been patient. I give way to her.
    Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Setting aside the extraordinary intervention by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about the structures and mores of my party, and given that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attempting to preclude my party from advancing the cause of women and has been silent about whether his party has any plans at all for the advancement of women, may I return him to his point about regional links? The Bill will apply also to candidates for the European Parliament. Can the hon. Gentleman define the piece of the infinitely larger European constituency with which any potential candidate would have to prove a specific relationship before selection?
    Mr. Lansley: I should chide the hon. Lady. I am the last person who can be accused of being silent about what my party should do. Some months ago, before the Bill was presented to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and I set out from our personal perspective what we thought should be the position. I cannot say what my party will do. That will be decided by the board of the Conservative party, not by me. In due course my hon. Friend will no doubt chide the Minister who I am confident will not tell us what the Labour party will do using the powers under the Bill.
    On the hon. Lady's substantive point, selection of candidates for the European Parliament would not be affected by the amendment. It would remain, as the Bill intends, entirely open for gender balance to be achieved in selection. The amendment makes it clear that the
    "section applies to arrangements made by a registered political party … in respect of elections for a single representative for a geographical area".
    We are indeed speaking about a specific geographical area, but the amendment refers to the election of a single representative for that area, whereas in all regions there are a number of Members of the European Parliament.
    Llew Smith: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understands how the twinning system worked in Wales

    891
    for the election of candidates for the National Assembly. There could have been a situation in which someone had spent their entire political life in a particular constituency, held high office in the local council and achieved the overwhelming vote of that constituency, but still would not have been elected or put forward as a candidate because he or she was the wrong sex. is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is acceptable under his amendment?
    Mr. Lansley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There was some discussion in Committee about the twinning arrangement. Clearly, I have not participated in such an arrangement, as it has not been applied in our party. None the less, if the hon. Gentleman is looking to my amendment to remove the possibility to which he refers, I must say that I am not sure whether it would serve him. In the circumstances that he describes regarding a twinning process, men in the two constituencies would have had the opportunity for an assessment to be made of their specific personal circumstances and of their relationship with the geographical area in question. The simple fact that a larger number of members vote for a man would not necessarily convince a court that that should override the positive action measures that are being taken generally to deliver an outcome. There must be a subjective judgment about what is proportionate, and there is no way out of that.
    My point is that it is disproportionate and unacceptable, prior to any assessment of whether a man can be considered, to apply to any constituency a bar on even assessing a man. In those circumstances, under all-women shortlists, a man would not get to a point at which members could vote for him at all. He would simply be excluded from consideration in individual constituencies. Those are the circumstances that the amendment is intended to prevent.
    Julie Morgan: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports the principle of twinning in general. Certainly, my experience of twinning was different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith). Throughout Wales as a whole, the proportion of women representatives achieved by twinning has been a big boost to Welsh politics, so I want to put it on record that the twinning arrangement has been good for Wales. I cannot understand, however, what he has got against the principle of dividing the seats in a region between men and women, which seems a very proportionate response to ensure that we have equal numbers of candidates.
    Mr. Lansley: For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that the hon. Lady should interpret my remarks as meaning not that I am in favour of twinning, but that I would interpret my amendment as not precluding the possibility of twinning being one of the positive action measures that could be taken under the legislation. We know that the purpose of the legislation is permissive, but the question is what limitations the amendment would set upon that power. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) rightly probed that issue and sought to identify the limits. It is precisely the situation that the hon. Lady described in her last point that I am setting out to try to prevent—a situation in which, in an arbitrary fashion,
    892
    a given number of constituencies are told that somebody cannot be considered because he is a man, before any assessment has been made of the merits of male candidates who live in those areas. Those are the specific circumstances that I am trying to preclude.
    Fiona Mactaggart: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is contesting that the amendment is required to bring us into conformity with European legislation. If that is the case, however, it means that that European legislation exists and is binding, and that the amendment is otiose. I am also concerned about his suggestion that somebody's local connection is the key issue. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has a local connection, although it cannot be said to be more local because he talks about it all the time, and he used to have exactly the same degree of connection with Basildon. I am concerned that the amendment suggests that locality, rather than any other qualification, is appropriate for an assessment. I think that he is wrong about that.
    Mr. Lansley: There are two points. First, on the latter point, the hon. Lady elevates the local connection as if it were the only part of the assessment. The assessment relates to specific personal circumstances, including a person's relationship with a geographical area. The point of focusing on that aspect is not that it is the connection that matters most. It is not necessarily that merit, but one of the lesser issues, that matters most. However, if it is important to individuals to be elected for a specific geographical area where they live, all-women shortlists could bar them arbitrarily. That is unacceptable.
    The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) should check the second point with Labour Front-Bench Members. I do not believe that the Minister will consider the amendment otiose simply because the equal treatment directive or the Human Rights Act 1998 will make the test of proportionality in the amendment redundant. I think that the Minister will argue otherwise.
    The Minister's view may be wrong. I am not a lawyer. and perhaps I am the last person to judge precisely whether he is right, but I suspect that he is wrong. Given the merit of the argument and the undesirability of arbitrarily barring men from standing for constituencies where they live, it may be better to include the test in the Bill rather than leave the measure open to legal challenge, which will mean uncertainty and cost for the political parties that try to deal with it.
    The hon. Member for Slough appeared to be under the misapprehension that the measure applies only to selecting parliamentary candidates. It also applies to other bodies, but not to the European Parliament because we are not elected in single-member constituencies. Single-member wards are common in local government. The residence qualification for a local authority is based on living not in the ward but in the local government area.
    Whatever we believe about the desirability of a Member of Parliament's prior local connection with a constituency, it is incontrovertible that such a connection is important for local government candidates. Introducing all-women shortlists to create gender balance, but, in the process, saying to a man who lives in a specific village in, for example, my constituency, "You cannot stand for

    893
    election as district councillor because your ward will be used to achieve gender equality on our local council" is unacceptable.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, but he appeared to introduce an interesting variation on the definitions in the amendment. He said that a local government candidate, who seeks election for a single-member ward, would not necessarily have to live there, but would have to be resident in the local authority area. How does he justify that in the context of the amendment, which clearly does not allow for such an exception? It would provide that the relationship of a candidate who seeks election for a geographical area had to be
    "with that specific geographical area".
    Mr. Lansley: I am not talking about a legal qualification for selection. Local government and representation legislation provide that. One should be able to assess a candidate's merits. In the context of a local government election, the candidate's residence in the area will form a substantial part of the assessment. An assessment of a candidate's personal merits should also be made. That cannot be done if a political party imposes all-women shortlists on specific wards in a local authority area to try to achieve gender balance.
    Joan Ruddock: The hon Gentleman is beginning to confuse us all. He appears to place incredible emphasis on exactly where a male candidate lives. He asks why a man should not be able to stand in a specific area. What is the hon. Gentleman's motivation? He has absorbed the culture of the favoured son who serves on the council and is being prepared for a seat. That is the implication of his defence of the amendment.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I like to think that I am being generous in giving way, but at this point, rather than my being confusing, it is the hon. Lady who is deliberately confused, unless the Labour party is going to introduce all-men shortlists and debar women under this legislation. I am talking about men because, in reality, all-women shortlists are the measure that the Labour party appears to be contemplating.
    If the Labour party is contemplating all-women shortlists in specific local authorities to secure gender balance, it might say that, in the election of a member representing a single-member ward, men should be debarred from standing in that ward. I want to enable the Minister to be clear about this. A man could, therefore, be debarred from standing in the ward in which he lived, even though he might meet the local authority's residence qualification and could therefore seek election in that local authority area, somewhere other than where he lived. That seems an absurdity.
    It has been entertaining to test the resolution of Labour Members to pursue all-women shortlists, even under what appear to be untenable circumstances. They appear to be set on that course, even though it seems undesirable. The pursuit of equal treatment is important and necessary, and the Conservative party can and should achieve greater equality in its selection processes. We know, although
    894
    Labour Members may not, that to do so by using overt discrimination against men, even in exceptional circumstances, is a denial of our democratic processes of parliamentary representation and of representation in local government.
    This legislation should not be the way forward for political parties. Regardless of whether the measures would, in practice, be circumscribed by the courts in terms of a test of proportionality similar to the one that I have described, hon. Members should accept the amendment to demonstrate that they are willing to apply such a test to the measures used to deliver this worthwhile objective. I look for support in the House.
    Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for moving the amendment. I suspect that when he stood up to do so, he little thought that he would be on his feet for quite so long as he was because of the number of interventions that he took, especially from Labour Members. I found some of those interventions a little strange.
    One of my hon. Friend's reasons for tabling the amendment is the importance of ensuring that whatever action is taken by political parties under the Bill—when it becomes an Act, as we assume that it will—it will be action that can be supported not only under this legislation, but under European Union legislation. As we have discussed in Committee, action taken by the Labour party is the most likely to be challenged, because the Labour party is the party most likely to move down the route of all-women shortlists, as opposed to the more proportionate attempts at positive action favoured by other political parties.
    It is necessary to probe this issue because when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, most of us expected political parties to be free, under the permissive nature of the Bill—which I entirely support—to introduce whatever positive action they chose to achieve the aim of getting more women selected and then elected to the House and to other elected bodies.
    However, the Minister brought us up a little sharp, as did the Under-Secretary of State in Committee, with a number of references to the importance for political parties of seeking legal advice before taking action. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire quoted the Minister directly when he said that the Government expect political parties to take legal advice before proceeding. There was a considerable point in the Minister making those remarks and, I suspect, some feeling in respect of his own party because, as many hon. Members have said, if any action is to be challenged, it is most likely to be that of creating all-women shortlists. The party most likely to go down that route is the Labour party, so the Minister's party is most likely to be subject to a legal challenge and to require that advice.
    I want to explore an aspect to which my hon. Friend referred but which has not been dealt with as explicitly as other aspects. It concerns the way in which the European Court of Justice has interpreted the law surrounding positive action. The Amsterdam treaty, which amended article 141(4) of the treaty of Rome, provides for positive action to be taken in circumstances where no gender balance exists in a particular area of representation. However, in interpreting the law in a number of cases,

    895
    the European Court of Justice has tended to suggest that the positive action system should not be so rigid as to bar men totally from access to particular posts.
    My hon. Friend made a valid point when he questioned the Minister on the differentiation between a post and selection for election as a.representative on an elected body. I looked at cases that tested the original 1976 European Council directive. We should look not just at the Abrahamsson case, but at others such as the Kalanke v. Freie Hansestadt Bremen case—I apologise to the House for my pronunciation—in which the court ruled that
    "on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment … as regards access to employment, vocation training and promotion, and working conditions precludes national rules such as those in the present case which, where candidates of different sexes shortlisted for promotion are equally qualified, automatically give priority to women in sectors where they are underrepresented".
    In the Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen case, the court made specific reference to the phrase that my hon. Friend has put in amendments Nos. 4 and 3. It said:
    "where there are fewer women than men at the level of the relevant post"—
    the court was looking at public sector service—
    "and both female and male candidates … are equally qualified … priority be given to promotion of female candidates"—
    under various conditions—
    "provided that:
    in each individual case the rule provides for male candidates who are equally as qualified as the female candidates a guarantee that the candidatures will be the subject of an objective assessment which will take account of all criteria specific to the candidates".
    That was again tested in the case of Georg Badeck and others v. Land of Hesse. The same phrase was used in the judgment:
    "provided that that rule guarantees that candidatures are the subject of an objective assessment which takes account of the specific personal situations of all candidates".
    The issue was tested again in the case that we tend to quote in this context because it was the most obvious challenge to positive action—the Abrahamsson case. It was held in that case that an automatic preference for an inferior candidate solely because of sex was precluded by the directive, and that application of article 141(4) of the treaty of Rome did not overturn that particular judgment.
    As all those cases show, the issue of positive action cannot be addressed in isolation. The issue is set against the background of the need objectively to assess a candidate's specific qualifications and personal situation in relation to the positive action that is being sought. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) have therefore specifically included in amendments Nos. 4 and 3 the words
    "specific personal situations of the candidates".
    There were many interventions and much discussion on the issue of locality and whether a candidate should be required to live in a specific locality. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made clear, and as anyone reading the amendment would see, the issue of a relationship with a specific geographical area may be encompassed by the "specific personal situations" mentioned in the amendments; it is not an exclusive requirement.
    896
    The distinction may deal with the point that the Minister made in his intervention on the legal qualifications to stand for local authority office and the requirement to live in a local authority geographical area as opposed to a specific ward in that local authority. Nevertheless, living in a specific ward may be part of the "specific personal situations" that could be taken into account in assessing the candidates.
    Various hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), in various interventions—have speculated on what the Conservative party will do. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said, he and I are perhaps the two Conservative Members who least deserve to be challenged on the issue by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate because we have proposed to our party a positive way forward on the issue. Although it is, of course, for our party to choose which route to pursue, we have made positive proposals.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Fareham for tabling their amendments, which are intended to test the issue. Case law sends a message on the issue. If the legislation does not incorporate amendments to reflect that case law, it is possible that a political party—we assume that it will be the Labour party—that chooses all-women shortlists will find that its all-women shortlists are challenged. I apologise to hon. Members as I have not seen the reference, but I understand that Mr. Jepson, who took the Labour party to an industrial tribunal when it first introduced all-women shortlists, has said that he would consider challenging, on the basis that I have outlined, the party's decision to reintroduce such lists.
    In a sense, therefore, the amendments have been introduced to help the Government to operate the legislation and to address the issue of what positive action the political parties can take. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. If he is concerned about the possibility of legal challenge to certain types of positive action, as there most likely will be to all-women shortlists, he should very carefully consider accepting the amendments. They attempt specifically to ensure that the legislation clarifies the types of allowable positive action, thereby reducing the likelihood of legal challenge to political parties that try to take such action.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Member for South. Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has done us a favour by moving amendment No. 4, if only because this debate allows us to test on the Floor of the House some of the proportionality issues that we did not fully explore in Committee. He described his amendments as a pre-emptive test of proportionality. I think that such a test is valuable and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
    It is slightly ironic that, in legislation that is short, simple and permissive, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire wanted to be more restrictive. Having described the Labour party as much more centralist and directive, he tried to represent the Conservative party as more decentralised and liberal. That is not a description that I recognise, having fought the Conservative party for over 30 years.
    Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has done us a service by raising the overall issue of proportionality. As was constantly made clear in Committee, it must be true that

    897
    however permissive the legislation is in allowing the parties to adopt their own response to the situation that they face, they must do that in a proportionate manner. The Minister was constantly telling us that.
    As both earlier speakers said, at several points in Committee—and, indeed, on Second Reading—I was at pains to point out that there was already evidence suggesting that the Bill was likely to cause more legal wrangling rather than less. Knowing the sort of expense that the parties might have to incur, I felt that the House had a responsibility to try and pass legislation that was, as far as possible, invulnerable to excessive legal challenge and interpretation. The issue of proportionality is clearly the key issue in terms of interpretation.
    5.45 pm
    My normal response to legislation is this: the simpler it is, the less likely the lawyers are to get at it. That is why I have a real problem with the amendment. For reasons with which the Minister may, I suspect, agree, it is likely to cause more trouble rather than less. The references to legal advice made this afternoon and in Committee are entirely appropriate—and, as I said on Second Reading, Labour is likely to be first in the dock. Although the party may have access to a certain distinguished lawyer at No. 10 Downing street, which may give it preferential terms, the process will still be expensive. Nevertheless, I think it right for us to consider the question of balance.
    We should pay particular tribute to all the preparatory work done by Meg Russell and the constitution unit. Meg Russell's 2000 and 2001 reports set out, in effect, the options open to Parliament and Government. I am struck by the fact that she even anticipated this issue in dealing with the Badeck case, mentioned by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). She stated succinctly—how beneficial it is to learn of the feminine attitude to these matters:
    "This case found that national rules which gave priority to women when men and women had equal qualifications were acceptable in areas where women were under-represented provided that the rules guaranteed an objective assessment taking account of the specific personal situations of the candidates."
    The amendment is very much a response to that.
    The Minister has a problem. He must try. either here or in the other place, to give some assurances that his party—and perhaps others, in due course—will not run into difficulties. I think that we were led down a false path, and that the issue of locality was a red herring. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire did not bring out as vividly and as succinctly as the hon. Member for Maidenhead the inclusivity. as opposed to exclusivity. I happen to live about 500 yd outside my constituency, but I have spent all my adult life in Cornwall. Indeed, where I live used to be in my constituency before the boundary commission came along and moved the boundary. Does that still give me a geographical connection?
    I feel that the amendment lays too much stress on that issue; there may well be others just as important. For that reason, I suspect that, in due course, we shall find that the amendment does not really achieve what we wish to achieve. That, however, does not absolve the Minister of his responsibility to deal with a specific problem that his party and, no doubt, others may face. I hope that he will give us reassuring answers.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: I support the amendment, which, indeed, is in my name as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
    As was established in Committee, there is widespread support for the Bill's principles, and its attempt to improve women's representation in Parliament. It is important that we get it right, however. The amendment reflects the series of cases, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), that established the basis on which positive action could be taken.
    One of the cases that gave rise to the Bill was Mr. Jepson's legal action against the Labour Party. In Committee, there was much discussion about whether a legal challenge to the Bill could succeed. In this month's edition of The Parliamentary Monitor, Mr. Jepson raises his head again, saying that he believes the Bill will
    "collapse if it could be proved it is a vehicle through which to introduce controversial all-women shortlists. He dismissed government claims that there will be no legal problem providing 'positive action is proportionate to the issue'."
    He went on to say:
    "Excluding all men or all women has no element of proportionality. The government is claiming this is positive action when it is actually positive discrimination. There is a difference—positive action, such as advertising in women's magazines, is legal—whilst positive discrimination is not."
    Clearly, those issues will be dealt with in a court of law if he challenges the Bill, but it is important to introduce some proportionality now.
    I want to refer to my experience in finding a seat before the general election and the issue of people with a local link. Contrary to what Government Members have said about their experience of being selected, I know that some people put forward their name to represent solely one seat, and no other. When I was selected to fight Fareham, there were people who wanted to represent only that seat.
    In taking any measure to increase the representation of women in Parliament, we should be careful not to exclude people who want to represent the seat in which they live or for which they have another criterion that makes them especially suitable. In my area, someone with a military background might be highly appropriate to stand in seats in Portsmouth or Gosport, but might be precluded from doing so by the adoption of a particular kind of shortlist.
    We need to have an objective assessment of who should be considered for adoption as a candidate and there should be guidance in law to ensure that parties can frame their procedures to take proportionality into account. It is not Parliament's job to frame laws that will lead people to incur unnecessary legal costs because the drafting has not taken into account the full range of circumstances that might exist and the framework of recent European Union legislation. The cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead set a clear trend: we must consider objectively the merits of all candidates when taking positive action, and we should not prefer a female candidate if all the other criteria match. All candidates should be able to set out the criteria that make them suitable to represent a seat.
    David Winnick: I apologise for coming in late, but I have found the arguments fascinating and that is why I have stayed. I understand the reasons for the amendment, but are the hon. Gentleman and his

    899
    colleagues saying that preference should be given to local people? It seems that one of the factors in the amendment is that those with local links would be given preference, and I would have thought that most undesirable.
    Mr. Hoban: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have benefited from being here to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who gave a clear exposition of the case. We are saying that, in any attempt to redress the gender imbalance in the House, we should not prefer female candidates in all cases, and that where candidates are ostensibly of equal merit, we should think about objective criteria that make one of them more particularly suited for the seat. That is not solely limited to the fact that someone is local, but that may be a factor. We are talking about selecting a candidate for one seat, not a group of seats, and we need to be proportionate in our response.
    Mr. Lansley: Selection for parliamentary constituencies often consists of national candidates and local candidates. We do not say that local candidates should be given preference: the issue is whether they are to be debarred from being considered.
    Mr. Hoban: Indeed. We should certainly not, by any measures that we take to change the composition of the House, debar local candidates from selection. That is the crucial point of the amendment. The Minister should take it seriously, to ensure that the Bill is not subject to legal challenge once it is enacted.
    Glenda Jackson: I felt I must speak against the amendment and Opposition Members' arguments, which have demonstrated a failure to remember why the Bill was introduced in the first place. It is not dedicated to absolute equality of opportunity: it is designed specifically to redress the gross inequalities that prevail against women who believe that they have a part to play in the political life of their country and find that the selection processes—even before we get to a decision by the electorate—preclude them from stating their case.
    It took the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire a long time to get around to the basis for the amendment, which is to stop the Labour party adopting all-women shortlists, but that is something for the Labour party to decide. If we waited for the proposals that the Conservative party has been pushed kicking and screaming into acknowledging that it has to introduce in relation to the selection of women, there would be even fewer women on these green Benches.
    There is something fundamentally confused in the thinking on this subject, as we saw when the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) referred to the necessity of selecting candidates with a military background for constituencies close to his. Such thinking may be replicated throughout the House. The obvious response is that he does not seem to realise that there are women in our armed forces—some in positions of great responsibility. The assumption is that if it is military it is automatically masculine.
    Mrs. May: If the Bill is enacted as it stands and the Labour party adopts all-women shortlists that are successfully legally challenged, what will the hon. Lady say to Ministers in her Government?
    Glenda Jackson: I can only say to the hon. Lady that I was selected from an all-women shortlist, before the idea of making that part and parcel of my party's structure was voted for overwhelmingly at two successive party conferences. There was no challenge. It was a decision for the individual constituency party.
    In my experience, when I was privileged to campaign in seats where women had been selected under our all-women shortlist procedure, admittedly the individual constituency parties were somewhat chagrined in the first instance that they had been chosen for this groundbreaking development in equality for women, but their subsequent response, without exception, was that they had never seen candidates of such quality and their real difficulty was in selecting only one from four excellent women. With one exception, I believe, all the women selected to fight the election in 1997 were returned in 2001, because they are excellent.
    It is interesting that the hon. Lady automatically presupposes that a legal challenge would win. I see no reason to suppose that, but if it did, presumably my party, along with others, would have to exercise a little more imagination. The basic issue is that the Bill was introduced specifically—with, up to now, the unanimous support of all political parties—to redress the gross inequities that still work against women who want to participate in the political life of this country, be it on local or central Government level. That is why, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I shall certainly oppose it.
    6 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: We have had a long and somewhat convoluted debate on what has been almost universally recognised as a short and simple Bill. The danger is that we will lose touch with the fundamental issue and we would perhaps have run that risk but for the appropriate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that concluded the debate, in which she rightly drew attention to the main reason for the introduction of the Bill—to remedy the chronic under-representation of women in all our elected bodies, including the House, local government, the European Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament.
    The fact that the imbalance is less in the devolved bodies is an interesting reflection of the fact that when the parties were selecting candidates for those bodies, the issue of gender balance was on the agenda and specific positive measures were taken to try to ensure a more balanced outcome than happens at Westminster. In terms of the representation of the parties at Westminster, the fact that we have a significantly larger—but by no means adequate—representation of women on. the Labour Benches is the result of the measures that were adopted by our party before the Jepson judgment. Those measures allowed a substantial increase in 1997 from the position of the early 1990s. As I commented in Committee, the fact that post-Jepson it was not possible for similar measures to be used by the Labour party when selecting candidates for the 2001 general election meant that the

    901
    representation of women on the Government Benches was marginally less than before. The momentum had been lost.
    The issue is crucial and one that we cannot avoid. It requires urgent action, and the Bill will achieve that. When the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) moved his amendment, he said that the Bill risked reintroducing the uncertainties caused by the Jepson judgment, but he is wrong on that point. The Bill is designed to remove the uncertainties caused by Jepson, which, as I have already conceded, led our party not to adopt similar measures—to those we had adopted before 1997—before the 2001 general election. It is precisely for that reason that we have framed the Bill so as to make it possible for political parties to adopt measures that will make it more likely that the outcome—in Committee, we focused on outcomes rather than on processes—would be a significant increase in the proportion of women candidates elected. The Bill would achieve that aim, and the amendment would not be helpful. Indeed, it would be disadvantageous in several ways.
    Before I deal with the disadvantages of the amendment, I shall discuss the legal issues which rightly pre-occupied many of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I am aware that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire drew extensively on the Abrahamsson case in the way he presented his case and in the very wording of his amendment. I remind the House that that case was brought in relation to the appointment of a candidate to an academic post. Indeed, all the cases from the European Court that have been cited in the course of the debate have all been related to the appointment of candidates, not the selection of candidates for election. As I stated on Second Reading and in Committee, in our view there is a clear distinction, in terms of European law, between the appointment process and the selection of candidates for election. Our view is that the latter does not fall within the ambit of Community law.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred, appropriately, to the report, "Making It Happen", by Meg Russell from the constitution unit. The report, which relates to the Bill, makes a relevant and well expressed point that:
    "it is extremely unlikely that the European Court of Justice would (as UK courts have done with respect to the Sex Discrimination Act) outlaw positive action for women in the party selection process by ruling that it is covered by employment provisions. The European Commission has twice stated a clear belief that selection of candidates by political parties does not fall within the scope of the Equal Treatment Directive, in answer to questions in the European Parliament. If the court were to rule that EU law extended to candidate selection by parties, this would create chaos for those many parties all around the EU which use quota systems. As described in Appendix 2, strict positive action measures are now even enshrined in domestic law in some states such as France. In practice it would be politically impossible for the European Court of Justice to overturn these systems, and it can easily be argued that selection of candidates for political office is outside the competence of the EU."
    In the course of our considerations we have obviously referred to people expert in such matters, and those comments are apposite and should guide our judgments.
    If we were to accept the amendment, we would introduce a limitation into the Bill that is unnecessary and which would limit political parties' freedom to decide for themselves how they wish to use the provisions of the Bill. We have stressed throughout that the Bill is
    902
    permissive and the amendment strays away from that by seeking to dictate limits on the kind of measures that could be considered by political parties. It is not appropriate for the House to impose such specific restrictions on the way in which political parties order their selection criteria. It is right that the legislation should allow political parties to adopt measures that seek to meet the objective for which the Bill was introduced, but it is not right to prescribe in detail the measures that parties can adopt.
    Mr. Lansley: The Minister has sought to reassure us about the application of European Union law, but he has not touched on the question of the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and whether the argument about objective and reasonable justification for the measures, as a departure from what would otherwise be equal treatment, might apply.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, we covered that ground on Second Reading and in Committee, but I shall present the issues once again. The first principle is that the concept of candidate selection differs from the concept of appointment of a candidate to a post of paid employment. I have already made that distinction. The second issue, which we have considered in some detail, is one of proportionality. Measures that seek to remedy a wrong must be proportionate to the wrong that they seek to redress. We have considered that principle and the Bill contains a sunset clause so that the impact of any measures that might be introduced under the Bill can be reviewed at a future date when the imbalance that exists in all elected bodies in this country will have been reduced, if not eliminated. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that issue of proportionality when he considers the issue of human rights.
    As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have made it clear that I do not intend to be drawn into the respective merits of specific measures that political parties might take under the provisions of the Bill. Parties themselves must have their own discussions, and decide internally which measures, if any, they wish to use. It was a little rich of the hon. Gentleman to chide me on the fact that I would not suggest what measures the Labour party would introduce when he made it clear that he could not say what measures the Conservative party would introduce, even though he and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) have been almost lone voices in their party in pressing for positive measures to further the cause of women's representation.
    Mr.Lansley: The record will show that I was not chiding the Minister, but predicting that he would not be able to say what action the Labour party would take. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) chided me for not being able to say what the Conservative party would do. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I have aired our views and if the chairman of the Labour party were here, we might chide him. As he often shares the Front Bench with the Minister, perhaps he will have something to offer us.
    Mr. Raynsford: I have no doubt whatsoever that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the chairman

    903
    of the Labour party, will indeed want to consider the scope that the Bill, as and when it is enacted, offers our party and all other parties, and introduce appropriate measures to increase further the representation of women here and in other elected assemblies and local authorities where the Labour party puts up candidates.
    I will reiterate: our view is that the candidate selection process falls outside the ambit of EU law and, as such, the equal treatment directive does not impose limits on the measures that political parties can consider. With that in mind, I firmly believe that the Bill should remain permissive and set no limits.
    The amendment, apart from potentially confusing a Bill which is essentially simple, risks making it much more prescriptive, and we disagree with that.
    The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also referred to geographical areas. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall that that was something of a red herring. Although we would not want to underestimate the fact that people may wish to select a candidate who has a local link, that is only one of many factors that parties will want to take into account. The hon. Gentleman made the very valid point that he does not fall within the remit of the amendment because he lives just outside his constituency.
    Mr. Lansley: I am sorry to be tedious and intervene again, but both the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the Minister are wrong. The amendment is perfectly clear. It refers to a connection with a specific geographical area; it does not state that candidates would have to live within a specific geographical area and it is only one factor that might be taken into account in considering a candidate's personal situation. I would be grateful if the Minister would not misrepresent the amendment even if he objects to it.
    Mr. Raynsford: I was simply picking up the points that were forcefully argued by the hon. Gentleman. Many of his hon. Friends referred to the merits of parties being able to select people who lived within certain areas. If he is now saying that his amendment would not achieve that effect, what is its purpose if it would allow someone to use the obscure reference that they happened to have passed through the constituency of South Cambridgeshire in 1937 to claim a local connection with the area?
    Mr. Tyler rose—
    Mrs. May rose—
    Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall and then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Maidenhead.
    Mr. Tyler: In order to avoid further misrepresentation and confusion, let me say that I understood the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. However, this discussion illustrates how dangerous it would be to go down this path. It happens that my ancestors arrived in Cornwall in 1066. Is that a connection with the constituency?
    6.15 pm
    David Winnick: Can the hon. Gentleman prove it?
    Mr. Tyler: Yes, I can. Is it more significant than the fact that I was not born there and I live 500 yd outside my constituency? Adding extra burdens to legislation will inevitably lead us to such confusion while keeping it simple will, I hope, keep the legal bills cheap.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for North Cornwall, who has told us a most interesting fact about his own ancestry, makes an extremely sound point and I could not put it better. The amendment would add an unnecessary complication which would add all sorts of arguments over interpretation and ambiguity to what is in essence a simple Bill.
    Mrs. May: I merely wish to point out yet again that the Minister's suggestion that the amendment stands or falls on the issue of locality and whether somebody has a relationship with a specific geographical area is a complete misreading and misinterpretation of the amendment. As he has already acknowledged, the amendment is specific in that it would introduce into the Bill wording that has been used in the European Court of Justice cases which specifically say that positive action can be taken in certain areas, provided that there is an assessment that takes account of a specific personal situation. That is what matters. A relationship with a specific geographical area is merely one factor that could, but would not necessarily, be included in that assessment.
    Mr. Raynsford: I understand clearly what the hon. Lady is saying, but I put it to her ever so gently that Conservative Members have placed considerable emphasis on the geographic issue and that is why I have tried to respond to it. I take her point that the wording relates to cases that have been heard before the European Court of Justice, but I reiterate that all those cases related to employment. It is our contention that employment is a different issue from candidate selection as quite different criteria apply. That is the key point.
    The amendment also refers to personal situations. We had an interesting debate in Committee in which the hon. Lady quite rightly and very graphically described the kind of problems that arise in the selection process when women are asked inappropriate questions.
    Introducing the concept of personal situations risks legitimising exactly the undesirable questions that she was at pains to criticise in Committee. If it is legitimate to delve into personal situations, how can it be wrong for parties to start asking awkward questions about women's availability to carry out certain functions or the impact of family responsibilities on their ability to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities or other such entirely inappropriate questions which the hon. Lady and other members of the Committee said made it very difficult in some cases for women candidates to be selected?
    I am afraid that the introduction of this concept into the Bill would tend to legitimise a process that we all accept is undesirable.
    Mr. Lansley: I am afraid that this is the Minister's most bogus argument so far. By switching off the application of the Sex Discimination Act 1975, the Bill

    905
    opens the door to such a possibility which the Minister says should not be happening. In any case, the procedures applied by political parties should avoid that.
    Mr. Raynsford: I have to put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that if he put that concept into the Bill, it would be impossible to prevent the kind of malpractice that he and his colleagues rightly criticised in Committee.
    For the following reasons, therefore, I believe that the amendment is inappropriate. It is unnecessary because it misconstrues the impact of the cases in the European Court of Justice that hon. Members have quoted. It unnecessarily complicates a Bill which is clear and simple and it introduces potentially undesirable elements which could work against the Bill's very purpose. We do not believe the amendment is necessary or desirable and I trust that the House will reject it.
    Mr. Lansley: I take entirely the Minister's point that complicating the Bill should be avoided in all possible circumstances. If it can be simple, so much the better, therefore in this context everything rests on the validity or otherwise of his assertion that the equal treatment directive and the application of European Union law will not impact on candidate selection and that. effectively, EU law will not apply to the activities of political parties. I hope that he is right. It would be reasonable for the Government, and subsequently political parties, to try to sustain that in courts and to try to keep the EU out of the legislation. I suspect that he will be wrong and that, as in so many of these issues, European legislation will creep in.
    I do not accept the Minister's other arguments about introducing undesirable features. The amendment would have done precisely what it was intended to do and in a targeted fashion, but as the Labour party appears set on allowing itself the opportunity of all-women short lists, there is little benefit in pressing the amendment to a Division. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall was generous enough to say, I hope that by raising the issues in this way, we will at least have exposed to the House and perhaps to a wider public that what might otherwise seem a simple Bill raises important issues that people should examine carefully. They should understand the nature of what is intended by the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    6.20 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We have heard some interesting and useful contributions during the debate, and there were many more in Committee. Women make up just under one fifth of hon. Members, and we all agree that that is not acceptable in 2001.
    The under-representation of women in politics at all levels requires urgent attention. Political parties must ask themselves why so few women successfully come through the selection process.
    Recent research by the Fawcett Society confirms that women face discrimination in the selection process. I shall not go into detail, as we heard enough evidence in previous debates. The lack of women in politics, however,
    906
    deprives our political processes of many important contributions; women have much to contribute in a huge variety of ways. They are grossly under-represented in the House, as they are to a lesser extent in other elected bodies, and all those bodies are the poorer.
    Since 1996, when the employment tribunal in the Jepson case ruled that the Labour party policy of all-women shortlists was illegal, parties have been wary of using positive measures to reduce gender inequality. The Bill is designed to remedy that problem and to give parties the confidence to use positive measures again.
    I repeat that the Government believe that all political parties must decide for themselves how to make use of this permissive Bill. We believe that it would be prudent for all parties to take legal advice about the measures that they propose to adopt before they put them into practice. That is not a sign that we lack confidence in the Bill. Offering that advice is a measure of the Government's prudence, and I hope that it will be accepted in that spirit.
    Political parties will have different views about how best to increase women's representation. The Bill gives them the freedom to decide the right way to proceed, but they must take responsibility for their decisions.
    I am delighted that there is broad commitment to the Bill's principles. Contributions to the Bill's consideration have been constructive, and its central tenet has not been questioned. No one doubts that something desperately needs to be done to reduce the imbalance in the numbers of men and women elected.
    I hope that the Bill will redress a fundamental imbalance and go some way towards making our democracy more representative, effective and reflective of the population at large. In the end, however, that will depend on outcome and what happens at the ballot box. We shall be able to judge the Bill's success only when we see what happens in elections to this House, local government, the European Parliament and the devolved Assemblies in the future.
    I hope that the measures taken by all political parties will increase substantially the number of women candidates, and that the electorate as a result will be in a position to elect many more women to Parliament and other elected assemblies in this country.
    I commend the Bill to the House.
    6.24 pm
    Mrs. May: I shall be brief, as we have already heard many contributions.
    I repeat that the official Opposition support the Bill's aim, which is to get more women elected to Parliament and to other elected bodies. We also support the fact that the Bill is permissive, and allows political parties to make their own judgments about the action that they should take to ensure that more women are selected, and then elected. In an earlier debate, the Minister rightly said that we were interested in more than the process of selection, and that the outcome of the Bill's enactment would be that more women would be elected to representative positions in elected bodies.
    The Minister rightly said that all political parties must ask themselves why so few women become elected representatives. We in the Conservative party have been doing just that. We are very aware that there are very few women on the Conservative Benches, and that our party must act to improve that.

    907
    Women must be encouraged to see election to this House as a career that is open for them to pursue. Showing that political parties are serious about enabling women to be elected to the House is an important part of the process of encouraging women to come forward for selection in the first place. If women outside do not see a significant number of women in the House, they will consider that the job is not for them, or that they will not succeed at it. If that is what they feel, they will ask why they should bother to go through the hassle and possibly even the trauma of a selection process that ends only in rejection.
    I pay tribute to all the women in my party who put themselves forward for election and go through that selection process. Many of them would make excellent Members of Parliament if they could succeed in getting elected. We support the Bill and want there to be more women in the House, but not for any tokenistic reason. We support it because it will enable us to take the positive action of our choice to ensure that women of talent—who would make a good contribution to the House and represent their constituencies well—are able to strengthen Parliament and improve our debates and our discussion of legislation. It is important therefore that we ensure that the Bill is allowed to proceed.
    The Minister said that many women feel discriminated against in the current selection processes. The MORI report on equal opportunities interviewed 400 female candidates, and four out of every 10 said that party selection committees favoured men over women. We want candidates in the future to be selected on their merits, and not because of their gender.
    I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said earlier, when he talked about the suitability of individuals for particular constituencies. I know that the actions of political parties are not a matter for the House, but I contend that my party—and I suspect others—needs to adopt a more professional approach to selecting candidates. Such an approach should take proper account of the skills needed by Members of Parliament, or by members of the other elected bodies to which the Bill applies. A more professional approach in that respect would also help constituencies.
    The job of a Member of Parliament has changed over the years, and political parties should reflect that change in their selection processes. We must recognise the different abilities that hon. Members need today, compared to what was required in the 1950s, or in earlier centuries.
    The Opposition support the Bill. It is important that women are given a proper opportunity to be selected to stand as candidates in the name of political parties and to gain election to the House. Women should not be debarred, effectively, from election to the House because the selection process discriminates against them.
    The Bill will enable each party to make its own judgment about what positive action to take. The Bill is permissive, and I welcome that. I support the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that more women are elected to this House and to other representative bodies.
    6.30 pm
    Joan Ruddock: This is a night for real celebration, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister wholeheartedly on bringing forward the Bill and on having conducted our proceedings in such a helpful and consensual way.
    I have a particular interest in this matter because I was once a Minister with responsibility for women. At the time, there was considerable controversy over all-women shortlists, which were defeated by the tribunal judgment. Sadly, without a challenge—although I had hoped for one—the decision went against such shortlists. I was certain that our political party would return to type.
    There was also the difficulty of a possible challenge over twinning in Wales and Scotland in selecting candidates for the devolved Assembly and Parliament. Fortunately, with a great deal of pressure from Labour Members, particularly our colleagues in Scotland and Wales, those measures were passed. The all-women shortlists adopted by the Labour party for the 1997 elections and for the devolved Parliament and Assembly in the twinning procedure were hugely successful, not only in bringing greater numbers of women into our elected bodies but in bringing women's views and contributions to those legislatures in ways that had never been seen before.
    Sadly, many people regarded the presence of a greater number of women in this House as a means by which to totally transform it. That was never possible, but perhaps some of the aspirations that were dashed led to people believing that female Labour Members had not made as big a contribution as had been expected. The fact is that the women who came through the all-women shortlists have proved themselves to be superb contributors to the House and very popular in their constituencies. It has been pointed out that, with one exception, they were all returned at the last election. There can be no doubt about the worth of bringing women into this Parliament through the mechanisms that we have adopted.
    As I said, we were certain that the party would return to type. That is what happened in the selections that preceded the elections to this House in 2001. We must remember that, and accept that it can only mean that there is deep prejudice in the selection of candidates for elected office. That discrimination is against women and, of course, people from ethnic minorities. It is true of all parties. Only mechanisms such as those in the Bill will change that pattern of behaviour.
    For those parties that have not had the courage of ours, the challenge, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, is to find mechanisms that can produce the appropriate outcomes. Nothing that we have heard so far in our debates has led me to believe that, in selections for local government and Westminster, other parties have in mind mechanisms that will deliver. If we fail to deliver in introducing mechanisms that lead to proper outcomes, we will continue to have an extreme democratic deficit in this place.
    More than 80 per cent. of our Members are men. That cannot be effective representation. There are two ways in which groups can be represented—one is to have their own Members speaking for them, the other is to have Members speaking on their behalf. I know which option women would prefer, and I know which is most effective. If I can say that for my gender, I am quite sure that it is even more true for people of ethnic minority backgrounds.

    909
    The time is right. This is the 21st century, and we have to produce a Parliament that better reflects our population. That can be done only if our political parties enthusiastically grasp what I hope will become an Act and thereby offer them, and us, the opportunity, once and for all, to begin positively on the road that will end the democratic deficit on gender. Furthermore, although there is no such provision in the Bill, we must also deal with the selection of people from ethnic minorities.
    Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who looks as though he might want to intervene. No, he is just encouraging me and listening with attention, for which I am grateful.
    I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) who, along with a number of her female colleagues, has made serious attempts to change the culture in the Conservative party. That change is long overdue and difficult to make. and I congratulate her on her efforts.
    This is an historic occasion. I hope that the Bill will be very speedy in its passage through the other place so that it becomes an Act in time for the new selections in our political parties.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Tyler: I, too, congratulate Ministers on introducing the Bill. To echo the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the Bill also has a number of godmothers, including the hon. Lady herself, and we thank them.
    Let me follow the hon. Lady by putting this in historical perspective. It has taken an awfully long time just to get this far. It is important to remember that women got the vote as long ago as 1918, when the first woman Member was elected to this House. It took until 1928, of course, for the restrictions that had previously been imposed to be removed. Until then, a woman had to be over 30, a householder, or wife of a householder—that must have stuck in the gullet—a university graduate, or rent property of a certain value.
    The Minister and other members who served on the Committee may recall that my mother appeared briefly in our proceedings. She is celebrating her birthday today, and I am not there to assist. She had to wait until she was 27, in 1928, to involve herself fully in the political process. Before then, she drove cars at Cornish elections and got excited about them, but she could not take part. Therefore, it is important to bring a sense of humility to the legislation. We are taking a step forward but, my goodness, it has taken a long time.
    We discussed outcomes on Second Reading and in Committee. We cannot be satisfied with the legislation if it does not produce results. That is why there is a responsibility not just on the parties to look at the legislation carefully but on the Government of the day and the House to monitor the success with which it is applied. I have frequently drawn the Government's attention to the fact that legal advice will undoubtedly be required by all parties. The Government owe it to the House, quite apart from individual parties, to ensure that the legislation is effective. That is why there is a role for Government legal advice.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who took part in proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, is unable to be here because this debate
    910
    coincides with our party meeting. I think that she would agree that women Members bring to the House an ability to be rather more succinct, sensitive and, occasionally, consensual than their male counterparts. I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) will not take offence when I say that his 40-minute contribution this afternoon was admirably summarised in about eight minutes by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) from the Front Bench. Therefore, I intend to be as brief as I can to show that we all have a feminine side.
    The progress of the Bill in Committee has been a model of how best to exchange views in a consensual rather than a confrontational manner, and that is partly a result of the fact that the legislation is more permissive and less prescriptive. We need to study the way in which legislation is applied and it will stand the test of time better if it has that feature.
    The Bill also contains a sunset clause, which Members on both sides of the Committee recognised as being of real value. It will concentrate the mind of Parliament to look again to see whether the outcomes have been achieved, rather than simply letting the legislation sit on the shelf gathering dust and saying, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter if we're not getting anywhere."
    My leg has been pulled at various stages about the way in which the Liberal Democrat party conference approached this issue. Those who want to read the motion that was passed will find it in the Library guide to those proceedings; they will not then have to contribute to party funds by buying a conference report.
    Clearly, my colleagues were apprehensive about going so far as to put in place a system before the legislation was enacted, but we do not rule out the need for action in our party. Goodness knows, we are not proud of the fact that we have not succeeded in getting a reasonable proportion of women Members of Parliament—only 10 per cent.
    We have been much more successful in local government, and the Minister will recall that at the European elections we put in place positive action—zipping, as it was then called—with the triumphant conclusion that we elected five Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament of each sex. We achieved total equality. Since then, I am afraid, a number of other parties have lost Members to us and we have lost that equality, but that is the name of the game and I cannot complain. We recognise that this permissive legislation may well be required in our party and we welcome the fact that it has been left in a format that will enable us to make maximum use of it.
    There was only one element of the contribution of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford that I would not want to endorse. I would look at the matter from a slightly different angle. It is very important that we all recognise that the Bill is not intended to favour women or to help them; it is intended to favour Parliament and the nation. I do not say that all women want women to represent them, but if Parliament is not fully representative of the majority

    911
    of the population and there are clear obstacles to effective representation of all parts of the community, that is a weakness.
    Joan Ruddock rose—
    Mr. Tyler: I am about to complete my speech, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. I want to be succinct and, in this respect, more female than male.
    Parliament as a whole will benefit from the way in which the legislation rolls out and the parties respond to it. As the hon. Lady said, there is a democratic deficit, but that is not a gender issue as such; it is a parliamentary issue. This Parliament is weakened by the fact that it is not as representative as it should be of all the community that we serve.
    6.43 pm
    Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to be a member of the short Standing Committee and by the all-party support for the Bill.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I think that this is a day to rejoice. Eventually, this legislation will transform politics in this House, so it is a historic day.
    I am glad that all the political parties have woken up to the fact that it is beneficial to have women in Parliament and at all levels of government to ensure, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, that our laws are better. That is the crucial point. We need women here to ensure that our laws are fully informed by different sections of the population. That is the ultimate end. We need women if we are to make better laws and we are taking a big step towards that goal today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on leading us so ably through the Standing Committee debates and this debate today.
    When we have resolved this issue, I would also support measures to tackle the under-representation of black and ethnic minority members at all levels of government. The National Assembly for Wales has no black or ethnic minority Members. That is the necessary next stage after this legislation.
    The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the article in The Parliamentary Monitor about Dr. Peter Jepson, who challenged the Labour party's all-women shortlists in 1996, in which he said that if Labour proceeded with such shortlists he would put himself forward as a candidate in an all-women shortlist seat. That would paint an interesting picture in Wales—someone putting himself forward for such a seat—as I think that we may well adopt all-women shortlists. I am mystified by Dr. Jepson's attitude. He seems to want deliberately to wreck the plans of the party to achieve fair representation.
    It is interesting to think of all the women who were excluded from all-male shortlists for so many years. They found other ways to contribute to the community and Government, in all the different ways that women do contribute. We should remember the all-male shortlists that existed for so many years. On Second Reading, I said
    912
    that in Wales we have only had seven women MPs since 1918. We cannot get away from those facts, which is why I am so pleased that the Bill is proceeding today; I am glad that all the parties support it.
    It is right for the legislation to be permissive. Now, it is up to all of us to sort out this problem in our parties. I think that there is no option other than all-women shortlists or twinning, but the latter is difficult unless one is setting up a new type of legislature.
    Angela Watkinson: I visited Stockholm city council recently., which has just over 100 members, 51 of whom happen to be women. I asked what they had done to achieve that and was told that they had done nothing: it had happened spontaneously. Does the hon. Lady agree that we have a long way to go with our national, psyche and our understanding of equal opportunities and gender equality—but, happily, not in Upminster?
    Julie Morgan: I happily agree with the hon. Lady. Many systems used in the Scandinavian countries are of enormous benefit to women, for example the child care there, which I studied with the Welsh Affairs Committee. Many aspects of their societies are conducive to allowing women to progress. We need developments in all such areas too. The Bill alone will not achieve the representation of women that we want. We must tackle many other issues. For example, recent surveys have shown that women find it expensive to stand as candidates for Parliament. It costs a lot of money to put oneself forward to be selected. We must consider that issue as well as child care.
    This Bill is a good step forward, but it is only a step and there is a long way to go. It is up to individual parties to sort out where we go from here.
    6.48 pm
    Virginia Bottomley: I once more declare my interest as vice-chair of the British Council, which does a lot to promote and involve women in government throughout the world, and chair of a not-for-profit practice of headhunters, where much of my work involves finding talented women and encouraging them to put their names forward.
    In congratulating the House on reaching a conclusion, I must confess to an on-going note of disquiet, and I say that with some regret. I warmly commend my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and many others. They all know that, shortly after the 1997 election, I produced a paper on what the Conservative party should do to secure the election of more women Members of Parliament. I did so not because I thought it a matter of human rights and equality, but out of enlightened self-interest. It is clear that women are popular with the electorate. Many women have been chosen at by-elections, as I was, when selection committees think not, "Who is the favoured son?" but "Who is likely to win in difficult circumstances?". My message is: "If you want to win, choose a woman".
    Mr. Tyler: Has the right hon. Lady noted the gender of the candidates in the current Ipswich by-election?
    Virginia Bottomley: I have not, but I have noticed that, today, no woman Liberal Democrat MP has been in the

    913
    Chamber during our debates on the measure—nor, I think, on the last occasion when we debated this subject, which is fascinating.
    Mr. Tyler: Yes, there were.
    Virginia Bottomley: There were certainly none today.
    Many questions have been asked about the measures that hon. Members would take. I want energetic recruitment, mentoring, coaching and monitoring. I want best practice guidance. Selection panels should be required to undertake training and outsiders should monitor their activities. I want vigorous positive action.
    I should find an all-woman shortlist extremely invidious in constituencies—whether parliamentary, European or council—where there was only one elected representative. The person who most persuaded me of that was the late Baroness Seear—a most distinguished woman. She pointed out that once we say that there must be a woman, next we shall say that there must be a disabled person, an ethnic minority person, somebody aged over 60, or somebody in their 20s.
    Above all, we are elected to represent all the people, whether or not they voted for us, and whatever their gender, race or age. I find all-women shortlists, or indeed twinning, extraordinarily invidious. Were they to apply, I should have to think carefully about my interpretation of the role of a Member of Parliament.
    I remain concerned about why we should want such different arrangements for Members of Parliament compared with other occupations and professions. The Minister did not adequately address that point in his brief summing up on Second Reading, or in his remarks in Committee and the debate today. The point about redress through employment law is one element, but it is not a complete answer.
    The House will be aware that, at present, the civil service is, rightly, making a great effort to try to promote diversity, so that public servants reflect the Britain of today. I strongly welcome that, but few permanent secretaries are women and few come from ethnic minorities.
    The majority of medical students are women, but the majority of consultants are not. I gave an example on Second Reading—about which I have received an enormous amount of correspondence—of a primary school with an all-female staff and asked whether an all-male shortlist would be permitted. The answer is that it would not.
    The issues arise in other sectors. Last week, black police officers met in Manchester. There are real issues about ethnic minorities in the police force and the services. In social work, there is a real desire to appoint more black and ethnic minority social workers and inspectors. In all these sectors, positive action—legal or illegal—is under way. Coaching and mentoring are available. People are being encouraged to come forward. As long as an appointment is made on merit, people in the public services have become fairly vigorous—rightly so—in saying that the public face of those services should reflect the diversity of Britain today.
    I fail to understand why Members of Parliament are such a different case. We should reflect the diversity of Britain today. We should take all the steps taken by others and we should not be thought to be legislating for ourselves in a vacuum, as though we were blinkered.
    914
    Similarly, I find it difficult to support measures relating to women rather than considering other ways to make us look as though we were more representative of Britain. At a time when 40 per cent. of the electorate fail to vote, we are missing out. We are not registering with the public—whether that is about gender, or age, none of us really knows.
    I commend those who have worked so hard on the Bill. I worry whether the ends justify the means. It seems like a form of social engineering to treat politicians as a special case. I continue to find that disturbing, but I, with others, will continue to do everything in my power to encourage more women to come forward, more selection committees to choose women and more members of the electorate to vote for them.
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I shall try not to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) by being too long-winded on this occasion.
    In contrast to my earlier remarks, I do not want to cavil about the Bill, to question it or even to oppose it. As the Minister for Local Government and hon. Members will know from Second Reading, my intention is to support the Bill. I hope that my effort to amend it was understood as an attempt by the Opposition to strengthen and validate the purposes of the Bill.
    I share the questioning approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley). That is why I question the Labour party's desire to go all the way to women-only shortlists. The way in which the Government have structured the Bill suggests that we may be able to switch it off by 2015 and that there will have been a culture change: but how do we get to that point? Can we reach it without the imposition of women-only shortlists? Many Labour Members think that we cannot: Conservative Members think that we can.
    As my right hon. Friend said, such change is happening in other professions. She rightly drew attention to the fact that, in 1975, 16 per cent. of hospital consultants were women; at present, the figure is 34 per cent. More to the point, over 50 per cent. of those entering the medical profession are women. By 2015, it would not surprise me if more than 50 per cent. of consultants were women.
    Nineteen per cent. of the accountancy profession are women, but 45 per cent. of current entrants are women. Women make up 51 per cent. of current entrants to the legal profession. However, there is a difficulty—a culture problem. As a House, it is not merely the fact that, historically, we are overwhelmingly male, and that if those entering it are disproportionately female the balance will shift over time: we have to deal with the beam in our own eye. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) is in the Chamber and offers abundant evidence of the merits of women candidates, but she is the only woman among the 35 new Conservative Members elected in 2001. That is not remotely acceptable.
    We should have changed that situation and might have done so if more of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey had been taken on board. However, although I cannot go along with my right hon. Friend's view that measures such as recruitment, mentoring and training will be sufficient, there is a large gap between her proposals and women-only shortlists. That is the area of balanced shortlists.

    915
    As a party, we insist on going out from the centre and recruiting in the expectation that constituencies will be obliged to select from balanced shortlists. Given the nature of the system that we have adopted, even if constituencies do not deliver the necessary outcome, they will increasingly see more suitably qualified women candidates than men. By the expedient of not reaching the point where we insist that an individual constituency cannot consider the merits of a male candidate, we shall not undermine the case for the positive measures that we in the Conservative party should take. My hope and belief is that we can achieve the necessary change in culture relatively quickly and demonstrate that the form of discrimination by which some Labour Members seek to achieve that objective is counter-productive and unnecessary.
    At the risk of delaying the House for a second, I want to mention another issue. The Bill is intended to apply to a specific range of elections, and the Minister has made it clear that it will also apply to elections to the House of Lords. I look forward to that, not least because the House of Lords is intended to complement the House of Commons, yet in this respect it does not—only 16 per cent. of peers in the other place are women, as are only 22 per cent. of life peers created since 1997.
    Leaving aside elections, the White Paper provides that at least 30 per cent. of the new life peers will be women, yet in the same paragraph it states that at least 30 per cent. of those appointed will be men. By extension, if we start with 22 per cent. and the fact that at least 30 per cent. of the new appointments will be women, it will be many years, perhaps decades, before the House of Lords approaches anything like a gender balance under such a dispensation. That is absurd, because the House of Lords should recruit from the professions and the walks of life that are under-represented in this House. Talent could be brought into the House of Lords that has not been accessible previously in our law-making procedures through election to this House. That will, if anything, disproportionately involve women on the basis of historical experience and the current situation.
    I do not understand why the Government have not been bolder in the White Paper and said that, from the beginning, at least 50 per cent. of those appointed to the House of Lords will be women; nor why they have not made it clear that the Bill will allow political parties similarly to take positive action to secure the election of women to the House of Lords in due course.
    Finally, I have tried to work out what has restricted the selection and election of women to the House. I listened to a description of research into why something of a glass ceiling still exists in relation to the promotion of women in business and industry. There is probably a parallel, in that those involved in the selection of women to sit on the main boards of companies are not keeping up with those who genuinely select people on merit, as seems to be the case in the professions and with qualifications.
    Researchers concluded that men were, by and large, assessed on their potential. That happens in constituencies. where people look at candidates for selection, such as hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and say, "This man will go far." However, women are selected on performance. Women candidates will be asked, "What have
    916
    you achieved? How can you prove that you are good enough?" We have to change that culture, and I hope that in the three-year run-up to the next election the Conservative party will use the Bill to change the culture and use women's potential to boost the standing of the Conservative party and the reputation of the whole House.
    7.4 pm
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to have a few minutes in which to contribute to the latter stages of the consideration of the Bill. It is interesting that we are debating the Bill on a day of very fast-moving geopolitical events. The question of female representation in a new Administration in Afghanistan has formed part of the discussions that have taken place today. That geopolitical context is pertinent to this debate, for General Musharraf reminded hon. Members at Westminster last week that a third of the Members of Parliament in Pakistan are female. We are contributing to the debate in the knowledge that the mother of Parliaments perhaps has a little catching up to do.
    I entirely take on board the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) about being adverse to the concept of social engineering, but I would say to her that the Bill is perhaps more about gearing up. In the same breath, I thank my right hon. Friend personally, because one of the first conversations that I ever had about embarking on a parliamentary career was with herself. The encouragement that I received set me on my course to the House.
    The purpose of these debates has been to refine the Bill and make it more robust. I pay tribute my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) for undertaking the lion's share of the work. I have read the reports of the debates in Committee, and I have felt that my hon. Friends have definitely borne the brunt of debating the workings of the Bill in practice. Many of the attacks that they bore in those exchanges were about history and the way in which things have been done in the past, but the fact that the Bill is permissive enables the political parties to look forward. Although what has gone before guides and chastens us, we shall see a great deal of change in every party as a result of the way in which we have chosen to interpret the Bill.
    The Minister said that he could not give an absolute guarantee about the robustness of the legislation if it were challenged in the European courts, but the right hon. Gentleman was a little churlish towards the Opposition, especially in relation to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the Government, with their greater resources and the civil service at their disposal, were surely better placed to undertake an absolutely thorough investigation into the legislation's robustness. However, the debate has teased out the fact that the Labour party is most likely to bear the brunt of the challenge. As other hon. Members have said, Dr. Peter Jepson has made an advance declaration of war on that point.
    I certainly should not like to conclude without paying tribute to the work that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has done over many years. It is relevant in that context to say that, not content with trying

    917
    to advance the cause of women at Westminster, she is very active in trying to advance the cause of women's representation in Afghanistan. That is a good illustration of how current political events tie in with what we are attempting to do in our own national Parliament. We will rise to the hon. Lady's challenge to achieve the outcome, which she describes as resolving the democratic deficit, of seeing more women on the Conservative Benches. That is the fundamental reason why we support this change in the law.
    We need to remind ourselves of the stark lesson that the overall turnout at the 2001 general election was only 59.4 per cent. Although there is no specific research relating the small number of women in Parliament to voter apathy, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that that is a very important factor. That is why we share the common goal of succeeding in attaining more women representatives at Westminster. We all have a duty to encourage them to come forward, and the Bill should tell women that we want them.
    7.8 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I concur with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has an enormous amount to celebrate tonight because of her inestimable role in securing the introduction of the Bill. My hon. Friend said that the Bill is a cause for celebration, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan).
    As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said, there is also cause for a little humility, given the amount of time that we have taken between us to reach this point. As a result of the Bill passing into law, we can look forward to a far more balanced representation of men and women on these Benches than has ever been the case in the history of the House.
    Until about two minutes ago, there was an exact gender balance in the Chamber. This is probably the first time that that has happened, but I hope that we can look forward to it in years to come.
    It is a cause for celebration that the Bill's Third Reading will not be subject to a Division. That shows the strong commitment from all parties that they will take action to ensure that the House is properly representative of everyone in the country.
    We recognise that there is much to be done. I have just referred to the temporary gender balance in the House, and I have another small statistic. I noted that, until a
    918
    few minutes ago, 30 per cent. of the Conservative party's women Members of Parliament were present, whereas only about 2 per cent. of its male representatives were here. I did not have the opportunity to turn round to make a similar calculation for Labour Members, but I suspect that the result would not have been much different.
    The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) challenged Ministers to ensure that elections to any future elected Chambers would be subject to the Bill's provisions. The Bill refers to the elected Assemblies that are already in place, so it would not be appropriate to write into it reference to something that does not exist. However, in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government said that
    "we intend to apply the principle in the Bill to all future bodies that come into existence and are elected."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 November 2001; c. 51.]
    That is a firm and clear commitment from the Government that that will happen in the future when relevant legislation comes before the House.
    I am delighted that the Bill's simplicity has been maintained throughout its various stages in the House. It is a simple Bill embodying a simple principle and it achieves a simple outcome. It allows for political parties to introduce methods of selection which they consider—I accept that there may be differences between the parties—will enable more women candidates to be selected for election to the House and to other elected Assemblies. We face a simple challenge: to make that happen.
    I look forward to the day 15 years hence when we ask ourselves whether we should renew the sunset provision currently provided for by clause 3. When we look around these Benches, I hope that we shall say, "No, we should not renew that provision because, at last, the talents of all our people are fully represented on the Benches in the House."
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    DEFERRED DIVISION
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the results of the Division deferred from yesterday.
    On the motion on Local Government Finance, the Ayes were 357, the Noes were 1, so the motion was agreed to.
    [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, in Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments, a group of amendments appears under the heading "Restrictions on repeal of provisions of Football (Disorder) Act 2000". Amendment No. 1 was tabled by the Conservative party's Front-Bench spokesmen and by my colleagues and me while amendments Nos. 2 and 3 were tabled by Conservative Members.
  As you will have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, two further amendments were tabled by my colleagues and me. Given that, until this point, all selections are provisional and that there is an opportunity to make a last- minute bid for reconsideration, may I put the case for the inclusion of amendment No. 5 in the group to be considered?
  We did not take votes on amendments in Committee, because we knew that we would return to the issues on Report. In effect, two different issues were raised in Committee. The first was the legislation's duration, and that will be covered by the debate on the amendments already selected. The second was whether any preconditions should be placed on the legislation having a particular duration, and that point is covered by amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which would introduce a precondition relating to previous conditions.
  Although I am sure that it will be possible to touch on the second issue in the debate on the group that has been selected, I would appreciate it if amendment No. 4 or, preferably, amendment No. 5 could be selected so that those of us who wish to vote on those amendments could have an opportunity to do so at the end of the debate. I hope that you are minded to consider my suggestion positively, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I know that Mr. Speaker gave very serious consideration to the amendments before him. Having listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am not inclined to change Mr. Speaker's decision.

  Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

    Clause 1
    REPEAL OF PROVISIONS OF FOOTBALL (DISORDER) ACT 2000
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 4, leave out "subsections
    (2)" and insert—
    '(a) subsection (2) is substituted by the following—
    "(2) But—

    (a) no application under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning orders made on a complaint) may be made, and

    (b) no power conferred on a constable by section 21A or21B of that Act (summary measures) may be exercised,

    after the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which section 1 of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Act 2001 enters into force", and
    (b) subsections (3)'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 4, leave out—
    'subsections (2) to (5) are'
    and insert "subsection (2)(a) is".
    No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. Grieve: We are considering a very short Bill and we return to a subject that was aired and that was of considerable concern in Committee. Because the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has alas not felt able to respond to those concerns by tabling Government amendments, it is necessary to ask the House to reconsider the position.
    I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time or rehearse too much of the background. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, might rule me out of order if I did. However, it is necessary to say a few words about the thrust of the Bill. Parliament enacted legislation that was designed to try to halt football hooliganism, and that legislation has commanded much cross-party support. Conservative Members certainly support it.
    That legislation has introduced what can only amount to infringements of what would normally be described as ordinary civil liberties, particularly in respect of the procedures under sections 14 and 21 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Under them, either a procedure by complaint may lead to a banning order or—and more draconian still—under section 21, it is possible for police officers to stop people at ports or points of exit and detain them until the police decide whether they wish to bring them before the magistrates within 24 hours so that a banning order can be made. That is an unusual infringement of liberties, because there is no criminal element to the jurisdiction; it can be based simply on the nature of previous evidence relating to the conduct of that person.
    In simple terms, the Bill will get rid of the necessity to renew the unusual powers conferred on the enforcing authority. The thrust of amendment No. 1, which enjoys the support of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, is to signal to the Government that, although we understand their motives, we think the provision should be subject to a sunset clause.
    In Committee there was considerable debate about sunset clauses. The official Opposition, for whom I was the spokesman, suggested that a five-year sunset clause might be suitable. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) thought that five years might be sufficient, but an amendment tabled by his party proposed annual renewals in the meantime. We therefore suggest in amendment No. 1 that at the end of a four-year period, the powers under the Bill fall to be renewed in relation to sections 14B and 21A or 21B of the Football Spectators Act 1989.
    It is worth examining in detail the powers conferred on the enforcing authority. In Committee, the Minister helpfully provided some indications of the way in which the legislation was working. He made it clear, and we accept, that in respect of the England v. Germany match in Munich, the powers that Parliament had conferred on the enforcing authority had been successful. The match was a success, and it is generally accepted that the level of violence surrounding it was tiny compared with some

    921

    of the problems that existed in the past. There was little evidence that English fans or supporters were the major culprits.
    That is a favourable omen for the working of the legislation, but against that we must consider the statistical evidence which emerged in Committee about how it is working in relation to the powers under section 21. According to the last information that I had, 98 people had been detained. The Minister said in Committee that if he had any further information of any substance, he would provide it, but none has keen put in the Library or communicated to us, although I believe that one of the statistics may have changed briefly.
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Last night and today, in preparation for the debate, we have finalised some further figures, which it would be useful to put on the record. The major development since the Committee stage is that, arising from the Munich matches, where section 21 was used, 22 cases had been to court and been adjourned. I can tell the House that of those 22 cases from Munich, 11 have been resolved. In five cases the banning order was confirmed or imposed, and in six it was refused.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, which allows us to take a brief overview. Under the section 21 procedure, I remind the House, a person is stopped summarily at the port of exit—airport or harbour—the police officer inquires into the circumstances and decides within six hours whether to allow the person to proceed or whether to bring him within 24 hours before a court. The court must determine whether the order banning that person should be imposed or not.
    According to the figures available to me and discussed in Committee, 98 people have been detained under that procedure. Against 55, there had been previous complaints leading to banning, but on the basis of what the Minister has just told us, we should add five or six to that figure. At the time that we were in Committee, 23 cases had been adjourned by the court, and 18 had been refused. If I understand the Minister's figures, another five or six cases should be added to that figure. Thirteen refusals had taken place at initial hearings and five after adjournments, but that figure of five would now have risen to 10 or 11—I am not sure precisely which.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the figures 55, 23 and 18, which he mentioned, add up to 96, rather than the 98 cases in total? I wonder what happened to the other two.
    Mr. Grieve: I had indeed noticed. I reproduced the figures that we were given in Committee. Part of the problem seems to be some muddle about cases arising from the England v. Germany match and cases that may relate to other instances. The Minister may be able to help us, but I can only go on the figures given to us in Committee.
    My right hon Friend rightly highlights one of the problems that we encountered in Committee and on Second Reading—the paucity of information about how the legislation works in practice. The Minister says that the provisions are good; that they have served their
    922
    purpose; that we have the wonderful example of the England v. Germany match; and that we should make them permanent, whereas previously Parliament was not prepared to do that, because of the infringements of civil liberties that the legislation entailed.
    It is extraordinary that the information has come out in dribs and drabs. My right hon. Friend highlighted a minor inconsistency in the total figures, but the Minister may be able to clear that up. It remains extremely difficult to form a view about how the legislation is working. All that one can say—it may be unfair to the Minister and what he is trying to achieve, but one must face up to it—is that a substantial number of people who have been put through the section 21 procedure have ended up without banning orders. If that is the case, the House should rightly be worried about it.
    In Committee, we spoke about the infringement of the liberty of the citizen or the subject—I do not mind which word we use, for the purposes of this evening's discussion. It has often been said in the House that we prided ourselves on being subjects precisely because we had so much freedom in relation to those who claimed to be citizens. Now that we call ourselves citizens, it seems that our liberties are constantly being eroded.
    People are being put through a process not previously known to the criminal law. It may be administratively convenient, but it can create injustice. We are anxious to ensure that we are not about to enshrine in law and permanently a measure that we may come to regret. Because the people who will be subject to it may not necessarily be the No. 1 pin-ups of liberal society—football hooligans as a group are not people who commend themselves particularly to right-thinking people—we might bury the argument as a matter of administrative convenience, whereas we should be willing to review it.
    That is the basis of amendment No. 1. It is difficult to see that it would interfere with the working of the Bill. The relevant sections would simply come up for review in four years. Considering the amount of time that we have taken over the Bill—an evening for Second Reading, an hour and a half or slightly more in Committee, and the time that we will take this evening—I do not believe that the progress of legislation four years from now will be massively handicapped if the Government are forced to revisit issues that have previously been considered.
    As the Minister fairly acknowledged in Committee, there are plenty of issues relating to the legislation which legitimately cause disquiet. A balance must be struck—we are fond of that word in this place—and we are not striking a balance if, on slender evidence of the working of the legislation, we enshrine it once and for all.
    Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman and I share many concerns about process and substance in the legislation, but I intervene simply to put one point on record. It concerns further evidence in relation to previous convictions among people in the following two categories: those against whom banning orders have eventually been imposed, and those who have been held but against whom no order has eventually been made. Has the hon. Gentleman's research since we last debated this matter revealed whether either category has ever included people who have never been the subject of any previous conviction? If that is the case, there is a greater apparent

    923
    infringement of liberty, because such people will have been subject to restriction on the basis of no previous evidence.
    7.30 pm
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I remember well that he made it in Committee, where he asked the Minister for clarification of the extent to which the legislation was catching people who had not previously been prosecuted for an offence of violence linked to a football match. If those whom the legislation is catching had been caught previously, it would not be necessary, so it would be interesting to find out the category of person whom it is latching on to. Of course, I accept that somebody might have had a conviction a long time ago but not be an active hooligan. In that regard, I correct myself, as I have to accept that that is also the case. None the less, we have never been given the information.
    That returns me to the basis of our anxiety: lack of information. The problem is not lack of understanding about what the Government are getting at or lack of sympathy with their aims. It is certainly not a desire to see football hooliganism return to rear its ugly head, as happened only very recently. We want the ability properly to scrutinise and to make an informed decision. Indeed, the renewal was introduced precisely to enable Parliament to do that, yet, one year down the road, we are being asked to renew the legislation earlier than was originally required, even though we need not have done it until next summer.
    That is why amendment No. 1 not only meets the Government's desire to introduce a greater note of permanency but provides a way in which the legislation can automatically come up for review. Many international football matches, including the World cup, will have occurred by the proposed time. All sorts of things will have happened that will enable Parliament to make a decision that is much better informed than what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the success of the legislation in a single instance. We are being asked to take a decision without knowing anything much about the downside.
    The issue is very simple and I do not think that I would be treating the House properly by turning what should be a short speech into a lengthy one. However, before I finish, I want also to consider the other two amendments in the group, which provide an alternative approach. We touched on it in Committee, but it is worth repeating. For reasons that I have mentioned, the alternative is this: we could decide to give permanency to section 14 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, but to leave the situation in relation to section 21 under the present system.
    I should like to amplify that point very briefly. I have explained the Opposition's considerable anxieties about the way in which section 21 is working. In contrast, we have far fewer anxieties about the way in which section 14 is working. Section 14 is, after all, a complaints procedure. Civil complaints procedures in the magistrates courts are a form of activity that has historically had a long track record. One of the ways in which one used to bring paternity cases was to go to the magistrates court and make a complaint. So it is not as if magistrates courts are not familiar with this form of injunctive proceedings.
    924
    However, we are talking about such proceedings occurring in a framework where there is no emergency and where there may be ample opportunity to consider the issues carefully.
    I say to the Minister that that is the way in which Parliament expected the legislation primarily to work. The section 21 procedure was expected to be an emergency procedure in the immediate run-up to a football match abroad. I think that I am right in saying—we considered the issue in Committee, and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that, in reality, far more complaints appear to have been made through the section 21 procedure in relation to a banning order than through the section 14 procedure. In itself, that must reinforce anxiety in the House about making the section 21 procedure permanent.
    That is why amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together provide an alternative to amendment No. 1. They allow for the possibility, if the Minister and the Government prefer it, of making section 14 permanent—about which, on the face of it, we would have very little anxiety. At the same time, they would allow the section 21 procedure, which is new and has been applied fully only on this one occasion, to continue under the present system while there is a lack of statistical evidence and detail about its effect on individuals.
    Those are the choices. For obvious reasons, I principally commend amendment No. 1, but I wait to hear the Minister's view. In Committee, he was conciliatory. He appeared carefully to take on board the points that had been made. I do not see the issue as party political, as all parties are united in their desire to ensure that football hooliganism is controlled, so I had rather hoped that by the time we reached Report, somebody in the Home Office might have sat down and concluded that a sunset clause was a reasonable way of proceeding. We could then all leave here very happy, but I fear that that is not going to happen unless the Minister has suddenly experienced his Damascene conversion. If he has done so, I will be delighted. I dare say that, if that were the case, we could all go away very quickly and bring this Report stage to a conclusion.
    I wait to hear what the Minister has to say, but I must tell him that we are considering a fundamental issue. Civil liberties and the rights of individuals must not be eroded for the convenience of the state or even the majority unless there is good and sufficient reason. Such reason is based on evidence. At the moment, the evidence is lacking, and the common-sense approach is to ensure that the issue can be revisited.
    Simon Hughes: I am very pleased to speak to the amendment, which., as the House will have noticed, was tabled jointly by Conservative Front-Bench Members and Liberal Democrats. We tabled it because we have a common view on the key issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and has been the dominant theme—as it was bound to be—of our consideration of this very short Bill.
    I guess that this discussion is a trailer to the debate that we are about to launch into next Monday. Although the Bill appears to be rather limited and circumscribed, and is apparently not of great national importance, it none the less touches on the same issues that the anti-terrorism Bill will, on a much larger canvass, bring before the House

    925
    from next Monday onwards for a few weeks. This is the foothill, as it were, to the mountain of important legislation that will come before us within a week from now. The legislation is linked by this common theme: the question of when it is right to restrict the liberties of British citizens and others in terms of doing what we would usually expect to be able to do. In this case, we are considering travel around this continent, within at least the area of the European Union in which there is a common travel entitlement.
    An article in the New Law Journal by Ian Blackshaw reviewed the debates on football disorder legislation, especially recent court cases. The first paragraph of his conclusions mentions the Gough case, which, as the Minister knows, was decided only a few months ago. It states that the case
    "illustrates the fine balance to be struck between the need for the Government to effectively prevent football related violence occurring when the English national team plays overseas and the demands upon the State to act in accordance with human rights legislation as well as the freedom of movement requirements imposed by UK membership of the European Union."
    We are all trying to deal with getting the balance right.
    Let us consider the key arguments. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield, other hon. Members and I argued in Committee that we should do only what is necessary, and that precautionary legislation, which takes away liberties, is probably bad and should exist only if it is justified by the evidence. We put the case that the evidence does not yet justify permanent legislation, and that it could not do that because we have not had sufficient time to collect, consider and assess it.
    In Committee, a Labour colleague, who has a special interest in and knowledge of football because he is the chairman of a league club, argued that we should not have permanent legislation—I hope that 1 do not do him a disservice—because football disorder will not always be with us. We hope that we will not need to display in our shop window that England needs permanent special legislation to deal with football hooligans. Even those who argue that the measure is currently necessary hope that it will not be required in weeks, months or years from now.

    There was a difference of opinion at the beginning of the debate on the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 about the duration of the sunset provision. It was fair of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to point out that different proposals had been put before Parliament. We are trying to make the Government the most generous offer by proposing a long period and by picking up on a suggestion that the Minister's predecessor made, who hoped that the House of Commons would agree to a sunset provision of five years. We sought a better deal. The House of Lords included in the 2000 Act a maximum limit of two years. It also provided for a one-year renewal requirement. That is why we are debating the subject again this parliamentary year.
    I want to make two further points about the need for more evidence. First, the Government have inexplicably introduced the Bill at almost the earliest opportunity in the parliamentary cycle instead of waiting until the end of the football season and the weeks before its expiry date next August. Even if they wanted to move urgently towards permanent legislation, their case would be better supported by waiting.
    926
    Secondly, I want to consider the argument that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield presented in detail. The figures are worryingly unsupported for three reasons. First, banning orders have not been imposed on a significant number of people whose movements were prevented. They were not allowed to attend a match abroad, but the prohibition was not found to be justified. Secondly, of all those who were stopped, many were permanently in the category that I have just described. Some were told, as soon as they went to court, that no banning order would be imposed.
    7.45 pm
    Thirdly, I am not aware of any case of a banning order being imposed on anyone who has no relevant previous conviction. That was the subject of my intervention on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. It has been suggested that there is one such case, and I am sure that the Minister will put the record straight. My colleagues and I believe that we should not include in permanent legislation a restriction on a British passport holder who has been convicted neither of a football-related offence nor of any violent or public disorder offence.
    My noble Friend Earl Russell asked a parliamentary question in the House of Lords on 10 July of Home Office Minister, Lord Rooker. He asked:
    "What types of evidence have been held to justify the making of orders under Sections 21A and 21B…
    How many appeals there have been"
    and how many orders had been made and on what evidence. Lord Rooker replied:
    "The Football Banning Orders Authority advises that in addition to the 44 banning orders on complaint cited in the Home Office report, two orders were imposed and subsequently overturned on appeal. Detailed information on the evidence laid before the courts in each case is not held centrally. However, the authority advises that all persons subject to complaint proceedings, including those prompted by section 21B notices, have convictions for violence or public order offences, not necessarily connected with football, committed within the time-scale specified in the Act."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2001: Vol. 626. c. WA69.]
    My colleagues and I cannot support amendments Nos. 2 and 3 because we have consistently argued that, without better evidence, we should not ban people with no previous relevant convictions but proceed gradually and incrementally. There is therefore a difference of opinion between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties about what is currently acceptable as a permanent position.
    In considering appropriate duration for the measure, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and I believe that there should be a decent period to collect evidence on which to make a judgment. We have not simply plucked the proposals—for five years in the amendments that we tabled in Committee and for four years in amendment No. 1—off the shelf without thinking them through. Our alternative covers a cycle of football matches that will produce every case that could be used as evidence for a reasonable conclusion. It would cover next year's World cup, a further cycle of domestic and international competition, and the European championships two years later. That competition prompted the measure. We hope that no one will argue that four years is not a reasonable period. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield implied, it does not require the House to do lots of work regularly, but it gives everyone a chance to ascertain whether the legislation has been effective.

    927
    We are not keen on the Bill; we believe that it goes too far. However, the inclusion of our qualifications would improve it. It is bad enough when emergency legislation stays on the statute book for years, let alone measures that are not justified by evidence.
    My second point is that, since we last debated this issue in Committee, one of the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office ministerial team was asked what became a topical question in the context of the international alliance's action against the Taliban regime. The question was whether there is a power to stop a British citizen leaving the country, if it is their declared intention—in practice or in theory—to go to fight against British troops. The Minister suggested that that was something that could be considered, and referred to the fact that legislation already exists to stop British citizens going abroad.
    I argued elsewhere—perfectly straightforwardly, I hope my colleagues will agree—that it sets a dangerous precedent to have a piece of legislation in one corner marked "Football disorder" and another somewhere else that could, in theory, be marked "Baseball disorder" or "Basketball disorder". It is much better to address the principle: do we, as a country, believe that we should have legislation banning people from travelling and, if so, in what circumstances?
    If there is an issue to be addressed in the Home Office of whether people can be prevented from leaving the country on the basis of evidence that they might be going off to become mercenaries or to join in some military action, we ought to have a debate in the round and to debate these issues together. The restriction of liberty to travel is the bigger issue, even though it is being presented at the moment only in the context of football. That is another argument for coming back to this issue in due course.
    The third issue is this—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and I agree that these measures constitute a significant infringement of people's liberty. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former deputy leader of the Conservative party, who has assiduously followed this debate, has also made strong speeches on the issue. No one has yet reminded the House of what, in practice, the length or the severity of the penalty might be. Under section 14B, it is possible for a ban to last between two and three years. Its upper limit is three years. Contravention of the conditions of a banning order can attract a penalty of six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine of £5,000.
    In relation to banning orders generally, if they are imposed at the same time as a custodial sentence is imposed under the existing legislation, they have to be for at least six years and they can be as long as 10 years. If they are imposed off the back of any other conviction, the period must be at least three years and can be up to five years. Obviously, I do not know what is in the minds of all colleagues on both sides of the House, but we are not talking about a measure that stops someone travelling for two minutes, two days, two months or even two years. In many cases, we are talking about a long-term restriction of liberty.
    The measure risks turning someone with no previous conviction of any sort into someone who is defined by law as a hooligan because they have been banned from
    928
    travelling on the basis that suspicions about their previous behaviour—for which they have never been convicted—and suggestions about their future activities make it appropriate to say that a restriction of liberty should be imposed.
    I am sorry that we cannot put to the House the opportunity of discussing the matter of previous convictions; I accept that that is not possible this evening. In the circumstances, I hope that there will be maximum agreement for the restriction of the life of the measures, as the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives jointly propose. I have a sense that if, down the corridor in the other House, the Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers vote together—even without the independent peers, although they are often supportive—we may be able to persuade the Government by our numbers in a few days' time, even if we have not persuaded them by our argument tonight.
    It would be more gracious, and probably save a bit of time, if the Government accepted the amendment this evening. We have given them plenty of notice and plenty of opportunity, and our proposals are eminently reasonable. I hope that I am being fair to the House in saying that I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and I will be regarded as having put the case reasonably. It is a strong case, and we really must not make this legislation permanent now. There is just not the evidence to do so.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall endeavour to be brief. The position is very clear—sections 14B, 21A and 21B give the authorities the power to deprive British subjects of their liberties and rights even though they may not have been convicted of any offence. That power ought not to be on the statute book at all. It certainly ought not to be on it permanently, and I therefore support the amendment. None the less, the power is on the statute book temporarily. We have some experience of its operation. That experience may not be adequate or complete, but none the less we have to use it to make an assessment of whether the powers are effective and of whether they are necessary to meet desirable objectives.
    Since the powers were introduced, there has been a period of calm at home and abroad with respect to English football hooliganism. Clearly, the Football Spectators Act 1989 as a whole has either been effective or it has coincided rather happily with a period of calm for which it is not responsible. Let us assume that it has contributed to that calm. We know that, of the 400 or 500 people who have been detained or prevented from travelling, only about 10 per cent., or a little more, have been detained and prevented from travelling under these offensive sections. Therefore, about 90 per cent. of any improvement that has been achieved by the measure has been achieved by their inoffensive or less offensive aspects.
    The Government say that although only a relatively small number of people have been detained, the sections provide a deterrent effect. The other sections presumably also provide a deterrent effect, so I still maintain that 90 per cent. of the effect of the Act could he achieved without these sections. They have not been shown by the experience of the legislation to be necessary to achieve the aims that the Government set themselves. That is certainly not a reason for putting them permanently on the statute book, and it reinforces the case for this sunset clause.

    929
    I shall consider the position in principle. The reason that section 14B is offensive is that it enables people to be detained even when they may not have been guilty of any criminal offence. In particular, it requires the court to be satisfied that the condition in subsection (2) is met. Subsection (2) states:
    "That condition is that the respondent has at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere."
    Broadly speaking, therefore. three kinds of behaviour are involved. The first is behaviour which may constitute an offence in the United Kingdom, but for which no conviction has yet been obtained. In Committee, the Minister pointed out that Lord Justice Laws had said that the standard of proof required would be practicably indistinguishable from the criminal standard. If, therefore, it is possible to bring forward proof of a criminal standard that someone has engaged in behaviour that constitutes an offence, why do we not simply charge them with that offence and convict them? For that kind of behaviour, we do not need section 14B.
    The second kind of relevant behaviour is that which does not constitute a criminal offence in the UK or abroad. If something is not a crime, it should not be punished. If it deserves to be punished, it should be a crime. The Government have not resolved that or told us whether they believe that there is a category of behaviour that does not constitute a crime but can none the less be described as
    "causing or contributing to any violence or disorder in the UK or abroad."
    What is particularly abhorrent is that non-criminal behaviour is to be punished, quasi-administratively, retrospectively. People acting legally can be retrospectively punished by being deprived of their right to travel and of their freedom in the UK for some hours or days.
    8 pm
    The third category of behaviour is that which constitutes an offence abroad but has not resulted in conviction abroad. The Minister said that we all understand that foreign Governments do not want to charge and convict British hooligans but prefer to send them home. Foreign Governments have that right but, essentially, their duty is to uphold the law in their territory and our duty is to uphold the law in ours. There has always been a strong presumption against extra-territory legislation—against us legislating in this House for offences committed outside our jurisdiction and in other parts of the world. We have always believed that that is wrong and undesirable. It should be avoided partly because it can lead to a double jeopardy—people can be held accountable by our courts and courts abroad—but, more practically, because it will always be more difficult for a British Government and our courts to have the necessary access to evidence, witnesses and so on for offences carried out abroad. That applies in these circumstances.
    If Belgium, France and Germany do not wish to charge and convict British citizens for behaviour in their territories, it is certainly wrong for us to do so. Obviously, we should co-operate if we have evidence about people by sharing it with foreign Governments so that they can either pursue cases in the courts or, if they wish to restrict British citizens' access to their countries during football
    930
    tournaments, they can do that and it is their responsibility. We should not set ourselves up as legislators for the rest of the world. The Government have a slight tendency to think that they rule the world, but that is a wider issue and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to deviate in that direction.
    Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government wanted to present extra-territorial legislation or seek an agreement with foreign Governments, they have plenty of immediate opportunities to do so? An extradition Bill is coming up for debate this year and there are plenty of European Union directives dealing with common practice that the Government seek to implement. The Government have plenty of opportunities in other forums to get the agreement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Whether he or I would agree with them is a separate question.
    Mr. Lilley: Yes. Emphasising the hon. Gentleman's final point, I agree with the principle of what he said.
    Practically, these measures account for at most a tenth or an eighth of the total consequences achieved by the Act as a whole. Within that 10 per cent. or so, a significant element of behaviour must be criminal, established to a criminal level of proof, charged under the relevant criminal statute and taken out of the legislation. The residual element, which is either non-criminal behaviour in the UK or criminal behaviour abroad, should either not be punished at all or left to the foreign authorities.
    I hope that the House will pass this amendment and time-limit the offensive clauses of the Bill, remembering that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, they have been quoted by the Government as a precedent for other legislation restricting British citizens' rights. We shall consider in due course whether that other legislation is necessary, but we must be aware that if we allow offensive legislation on to the statute book, it tends to spread. It is infectious. Bad precedents lead to further bad legislation, so I urge the House to pass the amendment and ensure that the offensive clauses are with us for only a short period.
    Mr. Denham: I hope that this has been a useful debate, although inevitably we have covered as much ground as we did on Second Reading and in Committee. One of the responsibilities that falls on Governments is to assess evidence, take decisions and offer some leadership to the House. One of the Opposition's jobs is to find reasons to oppose specific pieces of legislation without coming off the fence about whether in principle they support them. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) did an admirable job this evening, because I was left none the wiser by the end of his speech about whether, deep down, he thinks that this Bill is acceptable.
    The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was clear: he does not like the Bill. He does not believe that the measures that it takes are justified in order to tackle the problem that it seeks to address: the damage done to England's reputation and English football by hooliganism. That is a tenable position for the right hon. Gentleman to take, but it is not the position of the Government or of most hon. Members.
    I want briefly to go through the arguments that have been made tonight, assess them and say what I think the House should do under the circumstances. When the

    931
    original legislation was going through the House, the then Home Office Minister, now Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), suggested that there should be a five-year sunset period. Ultimately, he was faced with arguments in another place that we should assess the original legislation after a year, and we are now doing that. Each individual Member will have to decide, on the basis of the available evidence, whether we should now put the legislation on the statute book on a more permanent basis. I believe that sufficient evidence is available to the House to do that.
    We set out our reasons in the impact reports that we published on Second Reading and in Committee. The measures contained in sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the 1989 Act have already faced the stiffest challenge that they are likely to encounter before the 2004 European championships in Portugal. I anticipate that we shall not see such huge movements of fans to Japan or Korea as we have seen in the past, although we will liaise with the authorities in those countries ahead of the World cup.
    Therefore, the argument that it would have been better to wait and try to rush the legislation through in the very few weeks between the World cup and when the legislation needs to be renewed does not stand up to examination. It is not obvious to me that a vastly greater body of significant evidence would be available to the House had we operated on that time scale.
    Simon Hughes: Has the Minister thought ahead about what the Government would do if, after five years or so, there was no evidence that the English disease was continuing? Do the Government think that hooliganism by so-called English football supporters will, like sin, for ever be with us, or does he hope, like the rest of us do, that in time it will no longer exist, in which case we should not need to keep legislation on the statute book just in case one day it might recur.
    Mr. Denham: We approach many pieces of legislation on the basis that the problems that they seek to resolve might not be with us for ever. It is sometimes argued that all legislation should have a sunset clause built in for that very reason. I shall not go through the detailed chronology of events, but we have lived with the problem of hooliganism for at least 20 years, possibly longer.
    Let there be no doubt that we are being looked at by the rest of the world and tested on the seriousness of our commitment to tackling the thuggery and violence that has been associated with England. I think that the rest of the world would look at us rather oddly if we sent the message that we truly thought that, with that 20-year history that we have only just started to reverse, the problem can be eradicated in only three or four years and that there is no need for the legislation. Although I would love to believe that that will be the position, at this stage, I think that that would be asking a lot. It would be wonderful if there were no need to use the legislation.
    My personal view is that, given the time scale that we have talked about, we are likely to continue to need to have in place a legislative framework. On Second Reading, it was recognised that although domestic premier league football matches are very largely free of trouble at the grounds and immediately around the
    932
    grounds, there is still a significant amount of violence at some of the fixtures of lower division clubs. We have not yet eradicated the problem in our domestic game as we should have liked.
    It is quite interesting that, although we have had debates on the legislation's impact, no individual cases have been cited either in the House or in the media that suggest a real risk to the civil liberties of anyone other than known troublemakers. I think that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, it would be appropriate to enshrine sections 14B, 21A and 21B in statute.
    I have tried to be as open as possible with the information that we have on the Bill and to update the House as information became available. I shall again run through some of the figures, and deal with the point that was made in earlier exchanges on the missing two cases. The total number of banning orders amounts to 808, 708 of which prevent travel to matches overseas. That is an increase of about 200 since the Munich match, and an increase of about 600 since the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 came into force.
    As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, about 10 per cent. of the total number of banning orders have been made using the section 21 route. However, his conclusions and mine are diametrically opposite, as I think that it is a good thing that the majority of banning orders are obtained by routes other than the five-day control period that applies to section 21 orders. Nevertheless, I also believe that the provision's existence, and the knowledge that there is the possibility to act against someone who was not previously subject to a banning order on complaint or conviction, is a powerful and important deterrent that we should not lose.
    Since the law was changed, after Euro 2000, 537 orders have been imposed after conviction for a football-related offence, and 90 orders have been imposed in accordance with the 14B complaint procedure. As the records show, the remainder of the orders were made under previous legislation.
    I shall go through the figures on 21B notices. The reason for the apparent discrepancy of two in the figures is that the figure of 98, as it then was, included two orders that had been imposed but were subsequently overturned on appeal. Therefore, the initial figure is the maximum number of orders that were imposed, and the final figure is gained by deducting from that the two orders that were overturned on appeal.
    In the control period applying to Munich, there was a total of 67 21B notices, of which 41 orders were imposed, 15 refused and 11 subject to adjournments. The Munich figures incorporate the earlier figures that I gave to the House.
    Simon Hughes: The Minister said that 90 per cent. of the cases have been vindicated and 10 per cent. have not, but he surely cannot say that the civil liberties of that 10 per cent. who were stopped from going about their lawful business have not been unjustifiably infringed. If that percentage applied to the population more widely, it would be regarded as a national outrage. He seems to be saying that it is not a severe infringement of liberties simply because it affects only a small number of people.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman has to be slightly careful about that. There may be many cases in domestic situations in which individuals have an encounter with the law and are arrested, for example, but those individuals do not sue for wrongful arrest although they are not convicted of an offence. The House has to be realistic that, in court-based proceedings, we are unlikely to have a situation in which 100 per cent. of the orders that are sought are granted. Although it would be wonderful to think that a system could be so precise as to produce that outcome, such an outcome is inherently unlikely.
    The House has to decide, on the basis of the figures before us, whether the situation that has so far been operating is satisfactory and sufficient to be enshrined in law. The question that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield failed very carefully to answer is whether he would find the legislation unacceptable if that situation continued. Perhaps he will answer the question.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister asks an interesting question. However, the answer depends also on whether there is a perceived need for such legislation at all. Labour Members, for example, consistently opposed the renewal of internment because they considered that, in the Northern Ireland context, it was a serious infringement of civil liberties. The Government are now about to reintroduce it. The example demonstrates at least a willingness to consider the situation in which one introduces legislation affecting the individual's liberty. Surely the same criteria should apply to this legislation.
    Mr. Denham: The House will note that the hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. However, I do not blame him for that as he is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and does not want to commit himself on the issue. We have all been there. Nevertheless, he did not offer an answer to the question whether he finds the situation satisfactory.
    I have had to consider these issues, and I have considered the possible impact on people's civil liberties. I think that there will be most concern about the issue of adjourned cases. However, as I said in Committee, it is important to recognise that any restrictions to travel arise from the bail conditions imposed by the court, which is a separate decision from the one to seek a section 21B order. It is the courts that have to be given evidence and persuaded that there are sufficient grounds to prevent the individual from travelling. It is a separate decision, and that is an important point.
    Reference has already been made to the quality of evidence that is required, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) talked about human rights considerations. As of today, no human rights challenge to the legislation has succeeded. Therefore, the human rights implications have been tested in the courts, and the courts have come out in support of the legislation. If I had more time I would read out what was said in those judgments. However, I have already done that in Committee.
    I certainly do believe that as experience grows among police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and magistrates the accuracy of the orders will further improve, as it has already done since the legislation was passed. I
    934
    draw to the House's attention the Lord Chancellor's recent speech to the Magistrates Association in which he pointed out
    "some inconsistency in the application of the law".
    The Lord Chancellor went on to stress that
    "under the Football (Disorder) Act, where the legislative criteria are satisfied, there is no discretion and the court must make an order.-
    I think that, in that case, the Lord Chancellor was prompted to make the comment by data provided by police that showed that banning orders are imposed only in respect of one third of all football-related convictions. Of course each case must be treated on its merits, but, again in the words of the Lord Chancellor,
    "the magistracy has a key role to play in ensuring Parliament's intentions are realised—particularly in the run up to major international tournaments."
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also mentioned the issue of whether there should be a test of conviction before section 14B orders are obtained by means of the section 21 route or by direct application.
    Let me restate the Government's position. It would be rather odd if the qualifying criterion were a conviction for violence incurred, possibly, 30 years earlier, rather than more recent evidence that might be available to the court—for example, video evidence of participation in violent events in Munich. In that event, someone who had had a violent conviction many years earlier might be subject to a section 14B order although there might not be such strong evidence of recent association with violence, while someone who had clearly been involved in violence at an overseas football match might escape because he had never been convicted in this country.
    I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on the point, but it is an argument that we rehearsed in Committee.
    Simon Hughes: None of us are arguing that spent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 should be resurrected for the purposes of this debate; we are only talking about "live" convictions. Will the Minister tell me, however, whether I am still right in thinking that—as it happens—there has been no banning order under the legislation that we seek to continue that has not involved a previous conviction in relation to an individual? If that is the case, it shows that so far previous convictions have provided the justification, and that there may be good reasons for continuing in that way for the foreseeable future.
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is, I think, no bad thing, because it reflects the fact that the activity we are discussing is intelligence-based, co-ordinated by NCIS and local police forces. It would not be surprising if there were more concentration on those with convictions for violence, but I nevertheless think that the safeguard represented by the ability to bring in wider evidence, such as international evidence, is important.
    The drafting of amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is flawed, although it would not be helpful if I spent time explaining why. I believe, however, that the use of section 21A and 21 B powers is integral to the operation of the Bill. If we could not take action against those who had not been previously identified as going to a match with the

    935
    intention of causing trouble in the five-day control period, the legislation would be seriously weakened. I do not think that the attempt to make this a separate part of the legislation, leaving the rest as it is, holds water.
    I hope that I have replied to the vast majority of points raised this evening.
    Simon Hughes: As I think the Minister understands, the great debate within what is a narrowly focused issue concerns the additional powers introduced by the Bill. I refer to the right to intervene at the port of exit, at the last moment, when by the time the person who has been stopped can deal with the situation it will be too late, because the match will already have been played and that person will not be able to attend it.
    There is a much more logical justification for acting beforehand under the old procedure, involving going to the magistrates court to seek an order. Those who believe they have been wronged can appeal, and have time to do so well before needing to travel. The real mischief occurs when intervention by the authorities comes so late that there is no time to do anything about it.
    The combination of that factor and the lack of the necessary evidence fuels the argument for giving this more time to run. I hope that the House will support us, and those on the Conservative Front Bench, and agree that it is better to legislate carefully and for a limited time than to legislate for ever, when we have no assurance that any future Government will find time to reverse the legislation, even if it is absolutely clear that we do not need it.
    Mr. Grieve: I found the Minister's response disappointing. I was particularly startled by his comments about the relationship between sections 21 and 14 of the 1989 Act. I had never understood that it was other than the Government's case that section 14 was the principal instrument that they intended to use for enforcement purposes; yet the Minister now tells us that section 21 is the indispensable tool.
    Mr. Denham: There is an important difference between saying that section 21 is an integral part of the legislation and saying that it is an indispensable tool. I pointed out myself that 90 per cent. of banning orders are obtained by other routes. I believe that it would seriously weaken the legislation if the procedures relating to sections 21A and 21B were not part of it.
    Mr. Grieve: I thank the Minister for that, but we have seen that section 21 is used more than section 14.
    The issue is simple. The Minister has kept asking what a future Conservative's Government's attitude might be. He must understand that the legislation restricts civil liberties. The House will discuss such matters next week—in a much more serious context, but the principle will he exactly the same. There may be circumstances in which the restriction of civil liberties for which we should fight tooth and nail in the House are necessary because of circumstance. There is no doubt that football hooliganism has been a terrible scourge, but before putting into a permanent form legislation that, by its very nature, should
    936
    be subject to constant review by a House eager to get rid of offensive legislation wherever possible, we should bear in mind that principle.
    The Minister, however, wants permanency. The amendment is surely a sensible and constructive way of giving the Minister what he wants—no annual renewal procedure—while also ensuring that the legislation comes up for review when, perhaps thankfully, all Members may agree that we can safely get rid of it. For that reason, I wish to press the matter to a vote.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 278.

    Division No. 62]

    [8.26 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Lansley, Andrew

    Amess, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Baker, Norman

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Baldry, Tony

    Lidington, David

    Barker, Gregory

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Baron, John

    Luff, Peter

    Barrett, John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Beggs, Roy

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Berth, Rt Hon A J

    Malin, Humfrey

    Bercow, John

    Mates, Michael

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Brake, Tom

    Moore, Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Munson, Dr Andrew

    Breed, Colin

    Norman, Archie

    Brooke, Annette

    Oaten, Mark

    Bruce, Malcolm

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbuty)

    Burstow, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Burt, Alistair

    Paice, James

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Paterson, Owen

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Pugh, Dr John

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Randall, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon (NE Fife)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Rendel, David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Chidgey, David

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Chope, Christopher

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Cotter, Brian

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Doughty, Sue

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

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Gale, Roger

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gray, James

    Stunell, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Grieve, Dominic

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hancock, Mike

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Thurso, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Hayes, John

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Heath, David

    Tyler, Paul

    Hermon, Lady

    Watkinson, Angela

    Hoban, Mark

    Webb, Steve

    Holmes, Paul

    Whittingdale, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Willis, Phil

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Younger-Ross. Richard

    Keetch, Paul

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Mr. David Wilshire and

    Lamb, Norman

    Mr. Charles Hendry

    937

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Drew, David

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Allen, Graham

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Edwards, Huw

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bailey, Adrian

    Etherington, Bill

    Baird, Vera

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Banks, Tony

    Barnes, Harry

    Fisher, Mark

    Barron, Kevin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Battle, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bayley. Hugh

    Flint, Caroline

    Beard, Nigel

    Flynn, Paul

    Benn, Hilary

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bennett, Andrew

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Benton, Joe

    Foulkes, George

    Betts, Clive

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Blackman, Liz

    Gapes, Mike

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Gardiner, Barry

    Borrow, David

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brennan, Kevin

    Goggins, Paul

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Grogan, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Bryant, Chris

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Burden, Richard

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Burgon, Colin

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Cairns, David

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Havard, Dai

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Healey, John

    Caplin. Ivor

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Casale. Roger

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caton, Martin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Challen, Colin

    Heppell, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Chaytor, David

    Heyes, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hope, Phil

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Colman, Tony

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Corston, Jean

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Crausby, David

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cummings, John

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jamieson, David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

    Jones. Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kidney, David

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dobbin, Jim

    King, Ms Oona (Betnal Green)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    938

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Laxton, Bob

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lepper, David

    Rapson, Syd

    Leslie, Christopher

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Levitt, Tom

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Robertson, John

    Linton, Martin

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Ross, Ernie

    Lucas, Ian

    Roy, Frank

    Luke, Iain

    Ruane, Chris

    Lyons, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCafferty, Chris

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacDonald, Calum

    Sawford, Phil

    McFall, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sheerman, Barry

    McIsaac, Shona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McKechin, Ann

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McWatter, Tony

    Southworth, Helen

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Squire, Rachel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mann, John

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Stringer, Graham

    Meale, Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Tami, Mark

    Miliband, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tipping, Paddy

    Moran. Margaret

    Todd, Mark

    Morgan, Julie

    Touhig, Don

    Morley, Elliot

    Truswell, Paul

    Mountford, Kali

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Mudie, George

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mullin, Chris

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Tynan, Bill

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Walley, Ms Joan

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Olner, Bill

    Wareing, Robert N

    O'Neill, Martin

    White, Brian

    Organ, Diana

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Owen, Albert

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Pearson, Ian

    Winnick, David

    Picking, Anne

    Woodward, Shaun

    Pickthall, Cohn

    Worthington, Tony

    Pike, Peter

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Plaskitt, James

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Pond, Chris

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Pope, Greg

    Wyatt, Derek

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Mr. Nick Ainger.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    939
    The Bill may be short, but it has been the subject of careful scrutiny by the House. I shall not repeat what was said in earlier debates although I was surprised by the power of my oratory when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) decided after all to enter the same Lobby as the Government instead of supporting his own amendment.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister had better be careful as I understand from the Conservative Whips that he wandered into the wrong Lobby too.
    Mr. Denham: Far from it.
    There is a strong case for placing on the statute book without time limits sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. The Government believe that the measures are a tailored and effective response to English football disorder abroad and that they strike the right balance between national and international interests and civil liberties.
    I should say for the record that earlier I was referring rhetorically to a conviction 30 years previously being taken into account. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, convictions can be taken into account only if they occurred within 10 years.
    The available evidence demonstrates that the measures work. Apart from some disturbances in Germany, which were discussed at length on Second Reading, there has been no significant disorder involving English fans abroad since Euro 2000. The current football season has been up and running for about four months and I am pleased to report that the excellent record of English fans is still in place.
    The number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches overseas is growing significantly and Governments and police forces across Europe and in Japan and Korea continue to welcome the measures as an on-going declaration on the part of the United Kingdom of our intention to tackle the menace of hooliganism before it leaves these shores. The UEFA threat to expel English football from European competition has not been resurrected.
    In short, there is powerful evidence for enshrining sections 14B, 21 A and 21 B on the statute book without time limit. They withstood a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 14 months and it would be a blow to our national reputation and the image of our national game if they were to be lost next August. That would send out a negative message to our European partners, undermine the English and Welsh anti-hooligan strategy and weaken the power of the police and courts to act against thugs. It would also be seen as an encouragement to hooligans to resume the pattern of repeat offending overseas at a time when England is preparing to embark on its Euro 2004 campaign. I commend the Bill to the House.
    8.43 pm
    Mr. Grieve: During consideration of the Bill, the Minister has failed to take on board what I believe to be sensible, moderate and justified concerns expressed by
    940
    Opposition Members. They would not in any way have negated the thrust of the Government's intention, which was to put on a more permanent footing legislation which, on its introduction, had commanded support from both sides of the House, and even though it caused some hon. Members to express deep anxieties, was something that could be understood.
    We find it very difficult to understand the logic behind the course of action that has been adopted, but we draw some reassurance from the prospect that, given the concomitance of views among Opposition Members, it is likely that individuals in another place will put up a robust defence for civil liberties and try to persuade the Government that, although they should have their Bill, it should not be permanent. That will certainly be the thrust of what we shall seek to achieve later.
    On that basis, we are in no position to support the Bill and we do not intend to do so. After all, only last year the Government were prepared to consider a five-year sunset clause, but now they seem set against it. They have introduced this legislation to make permanent what in any event ought only to be temporary on such a paucity of evidence and on the back of one undoubted success—the England v. Germany match—but not on the basis of material on which a rigorous detailed analysis could be conducted as to whether civil liberties were being adversely affected.
    In those circumstances, I can tell the Minister that he will have to carry the Bill on the support of Labour Members. We do not wish to have any part in it, and we will seek to review the matter elsewhere.
    8.45 pm
    David Wright: I did not get an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, so I appreciate the chance to contribute this evening. I welcome the Bill. It sends the message to those involved in football violence that their actions will not be tolerated, in Britain or abroad.
    It is easy to discuss these matters when football violence is absent from the headlines, but we should not forget the shame experienced when supporters of England or of any of our club sides engage in misguided violence abroad in the name of football and the nation. I am sure that many hon. Members share the emotion felt by many when the England team plays in an international tournament. It is an awful feeling when one wakes up, switches on the television and sees hundreds of people rioting in towns in Europe and around the world. It brings tremendous shame on our nation. The Bill makes it clear to the people involved that such violence is unacceptable.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the need to demonstrate to UEFA and FIFA that the Government have an on-going commitment to dealing with that violence. It is important that we do that, and that we do so in good time. The Bill shows the world and the football authorities that we are serious about dealing with the matter before, during and after the World cup. I hope that the House will support the Bill this evening, so that we can make progress in trying to change our national game, and in dealing with the scourge of the violence that mars international fixtures.
    I intend to focus on some of the wider issues and motivations behind football violence, and on how the Bill can contribute towards stopping it, especially in connection with matches involving the England team.

    941
    On Second Reading. my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) spoke about some of the reading material that he had enjoyed over the summer. It included a Marxist analysis of football violence.
    The Whips will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to pursue a Marxist analysis of football violence this evening, but some of the intellectual analysis of football over more than 20 years has been interesting. In 1981, Desmond Morris published a classic book called "The Soccer Tribe", which deals with the following that football attracts at national and international level. He likened football to tribalism throughout the ages, and noted that football had many tribal symbols, such as team colours, the status of teams among supporters, the territories involved in home and away games, and the displays of triumph.
    I follow lower-league football. I support Shrewsbury Town and Telford United, so there are not many tribal displays for me to become especially worked up about. However, my point is clear: football is a tribal pastime. It provokes a tribal atmosphere among its followers which can, and does, provoke conflict. It is at its most dangerous when allied to a warped sense of nationalism.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of making a Second Reading speech. His speech must not be too wide-ranging, because on Third Reading we can debate only the contents of the Bill.
    David Wright: I understand your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will endeavour to follow it.
    The Bill assists us in dealing with people who engage in a warped form of nationalist violence on the continent and throughout Europe. The Bill gives the police and the courts the authority to deal with people who intend to go abroad and commit violence in the name of a warped sense of nationalism. That is not helped by the way in which the press and media cover football violence. We all remember the front cover of The Mirror at the time of Euro 96. Prior to the England v. Germany game, England players were depicted in second world war helmets. Such coverage, and the link to a warped nationalism, does nothing to assist us in tackling football violence.
    The influence of the far right on this warped sense of nationalism—which I hope that the Bill will prevent people taking to Europe—is particularly alarming. It is worrying to see people chanting certain songs at football matches in Europe. I recall hearing "No Surrender"—the watchword of organisations such as Combat 18—being sung during Euro 2000. The Bill endeavours to stop people who provoke violence and warped nationalism from going across the Channel into Europe and taking their hatred abroad.
    Other supporters in Great Britain do not seem to have this problem. Scottish and Welsh supporters do not behave in a violently nationalistic manner. The disease seems to apply particularly to England's so-called football supporters.
    The Bill will help to alleviate the problem of people travelling abroad to display the nationalism that is linked to football. However, change will be difficult, which is why the measure needs to be enshrined in law in the long term. I share the view that this problem may be with us for some time, unfortunately. We have to show the football authorities that we are committed to dealing with it.
    942
    Desmond Morris said in his book on the subject in 1981:
    "The trick for the future, clearly, is to retain this—"
    tribal—
    "tension, but at the same time to dispense with its most extreme and destructive forms of expression."
    The Bill attempts to do that.
    The other key reform that needs to accompany the Bill is the rejuvenation of the England supporters' formal structure. I know that the Government have considered that and have come forward with proposals.
    We need to prompt a more modern and internationalist perspective in relation to our broader national identity and to the approach taken when supporting our national football side. It would be great to have some moderation and support for that in the national media. I hope that the appointment of a non-English football manager will help to change the emphasis on the particularly warped view of nationalism held by many England supporters. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards stopping people from travelling and causing trouble. People wake up with a terrible feeling in the pit of their stomach during international football events when, once again, we have been disgraced at a national level.
    Football is a gift that our country has given to the world; the Bill will help us to celebrate it together.
    8.54 pm
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: There is a sense that, in their haste to clean up our national game, the Government are using a large sledgehammer in sections 14B and 21A and 21B. Recent tragic events, the human rights issues that surround them and our response perhaps put the Government's perfectly understandable desire to control football violence in some sort of context. I believe that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) hinted at that, and we will debate it on Monday. Proportionality is the key and I am not convinced that the balance has been correctly struck. The Law Society appears to agree, in particular about the standard of proof.
    We must divorce the argument from notions of national pride and the disgust that we feel at the actions of a small number of our countrymen abroad. We should not be in the business of curtailing traditional liberties to repair our national image or pander to the threats of other bodies, national and international, many of which are also burdened with a violent and distasteful minority. In that respect, the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) was wrong. To attempt to do so would be a gross presumption on the part of an authoritarian Government. Paradoxically, it would diminish one of the most attractive features of this country in the eyes of others—the freedom that we enjoy and the presumption of innocence.
    This Bill is a sticking plaster designed to remedy a small but significant lesion. We do not know, but we surmise, that it will help. Whether or not it does, it has huge implications for the traditional liberties that we enjoy and for which this House stands as guarantor.
    I could understand the Government's enthusiasm to curtail the liberties of subjects, or even citizens, if this was a problem that affected sport generically. There might then be more appetite for magisterial legislation of this sort. However, the Bill is designed to deal with a discrete

    943
    problem and, arguably, a declining one at that, notwithstanding an upward blip in arrests relating to football in 2000–01. As such it is surely not appropriate to award the authorities the ability to act against persons without criminal records in the summary manner that is proposed. To do so strikes at the very heart of our system.
    While one could be persuaded that the circumstances make it reasonable to support the general thrust of the Bill, one would do so with a heavy heart. Amendment No. 1 and the sunset clause that it proposed would have made the legislation conditional and would have set a time limit for the evaluation of evidence of its effectiveness and operation that we will now lack.
    8.58 pm
    Simon Hughes: The House of Commons is extremely helpful to hon. Members when we are preparing for debates. Football disorder matters have come before the House often in recent years, so the Library has on more than one occasion produced briefings for colleagues. The research paper that it produced in July 2000 on what was the draft Football (Disorder) Bill, which became the Act that we are trying to make permanent now, contained the reminder that this issue has been knocking around for an extraordinarily long time. On the first page it states:
    "Measures have been taken or sought since the fourteenth century to deal with the problem of disorder relating to football—a 1314 proclamation of Edward II declared:
    Forasmuch there is great noise in the city caused by hustling over large balls, from which many evils may arise, which God forbid, we command and forbid on behalf of the King, on pain of imprisonment, such game to be used in the city in future."
    —[HON. MEMBERS: "Millwall".] I hear completely unjustified allegations from colleagues, such as the Members for Colchester United and for Hereford United and even, for all I know, the Member for Telford United, that the fans of certain clubs might cause trouble. I must place on record that, although it has been around for a long time, the great and ever-rising Millwall football club, which is eighth in the first division and on its way up to the premiership, was not around in the 14th century, much though it would have benefited the country had it been there. Playing football was an imprisonable offence in those days.
    The research paper notes that we have introduced the following legislation to deal with football-related matters: the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985; the Public Order Act 1986; the Football Spectators Act 1989; the Football (Offences) Act 1991; the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) (Amendment) Act 1992; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999. However, the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs tells us that the most recent measure, which became law in July 2000 and took effect in August 2000, to which we gave a life of two years—the Opposition defeated the Government in the House of Lords and amended the Bill accordingly—and for which we approved a second year only in July 2001, should now come back to us only four months later in order to be made permanent legislation.
    I was happy to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison)—I had not previously heard him speak in the House. He made the
    944
    point that we tried to teach the Government the lesson of history: that, on the basis of logic and precedent, it is nonsense to believe that we know now what we shall need in four years.
    My view and that of my colleagues is clear. We did not support an unconditional Bill when it was introduced a year and a half ago. We tried to restrict it as much as we could, but we were only partially successful. However, we obtained a guarantee that it would be brought back within two years. We got it back after a year—at half-time—but we did not make a big fuss because we knew that it would return shortly. It is now back with us.
    We do not believe that it is appropriate for Parliament to make permanent legislation that bans people from travelling without allowing them enough time to make an appeal that would let them attend games. We believe that things may be much better in four years. It may be enough to introduce limited powers to curb the right to travel of people with previous convictions and about whom there is suspicion.
    The test for us is whether the Bill is temporary or permanent. By defeating the amendment, jointly tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the Government present us with no option but permanent or nothing. We believe that it would be better to defeat the measure so that this Bill with permanent provisions should not go to the other end of the building. The Government have plenty of time—until August next year—to introduce the simple one or two clause Bill that would be necessary to extend the life of the existing legislation, either for four years, as we recommended, or for a lesser period.
    A permanent Bill is not justified. We agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that that argument will prevail in the other place. We ask the House to vote against permanent legislation. It is a bad practice, unsupported by the evidence, and we shall divide the House.
    9.4 pm
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: As I spoke on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee, I had not intended to speak on Third Reading until my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) and other hon. Members talked about their football clubs. My hon. Friend referred to the tribal affinities in football clubs and I realised that, as a lifelong supporter of Cheltenham Town, 1 must be a Chelt. On the other side of the House I recognise a fellow-Chelt—the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones)—so I suppose that we could say that the Cheltic hordes are here today, although I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not be joining me in the Lobby on this issue. However, I want to make a couple of points because they have not been given ample recognition in the debate so far.
    Much has been said about the need to include a sunset clause because of the basic civil liberty issues involved. However, the Bill will operate only for designated international football matches, and it has a mechanism by which some matches, for a variety of reasons, may not be designated as requiring the full weight of the legislation to be brought into operation.
    If hooliganism at international matches diminishes as time progresses and the balance of civil liberty considerations changes, the sensible way to deal with the

    945
    reduction in violence is not to designate those matches. So we can keep the powers in reserve without having recourse to debate further legislation in Parliament, but we do not have to signal to the fans at large that the legislation is no longer operational.
    That is a far better way to balance the civil liberties and the anti-crime and disorder policies necessary lo protect our international football matches and the status of the England team and its supporters than simply including a sunset clause or not having the legislation at all. The Bill represents a much better way to deal with those issues and it should not be opposed, so I ask the House to back it.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Denham: With the leave of the House, I shall reply very briefly to the debate. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will not mind my saying that the fact that other hon. Members have contributed to this evening's debate is welcome. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, subject to the outcome of any Division tonight, the Bill will be discussed in another place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) made the very important point, which we should always acknowledge in considering such legislation, that we are dealing with cultural and social problems, and legislation can only ever represent one part of our strategy for dealing with the underlying difficulties that have been with us for several hundred years, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. During this debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked us not only to understand that the problems have existed for 500 years, but to anticipate that they might all be resolved in the next 18 months: therefore, the legislation will be needed for no longer than that.
    Simon Hughes: It may be introduced every year.
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman wishes us to legislate again, but the Government want to put the Bill on to the statute book.
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) raised several issues. He talked about the standard of proof, which we dealt with in Committee by quoting from Lord Justice Laws' judgment on the standard of proof required under section 14 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. Although the hon. Gentleman said that hooliganism is, arguably, declining, it is doing so at least in part because of the success of the legislation and the targeted policing operation that supports it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) made the important point that flexibility and safeguards are built into the legislation, as is evidenced by the fact that some 20 people subject to banning orders were allowed, on application, to travel abroad during the five-day control period in the run-up to the Munich match because they had good business, personal or family reasons to do so. We have examined the issues thoroughly tonight. I believe that we should proceed with the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 51.

    Division No. 63]

    [9.9 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Doran, Frank

    Allen, Graham

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Drew, David

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Edwards, Huw

    Baird, Vera

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Banks, Tony

    Ennis, Jeff

    Barnes, Harry

    Etherington, Bill

    Barron, Kevin

    Reid, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Beard, Nigel

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Benn, Hilary

    Flint, Caroline

    Bennett, Andrew

    Flynn, Paul

    Benton, Joe

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Blackman, Liz

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foulkes, George

    Borrow, David

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gapes, Mike

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Brennan, Kevin

    Gilroy, Unda

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bryant, Chris

    Grogan, John

    Burden, Richard

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Burgon, Colin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cairns, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hanson, David

    Caplin, Ivor

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Casale, Roger

    Havard, Dai

    Caton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Challen, Colin

    Hendrick, Mark

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Heppell, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hesfond, Stephen

    Clapham, Michael

    Heyes, David

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hill, Keith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hope, Phil

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coaker, Vernon

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Crausby, David

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Gtenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jamieson, David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Khabra, Piara S

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Kidney, David

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dobbin, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    947

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Owen, Albert

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pearson, Ian

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Picking, Anne

    Laxton, Bob

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Pike, Peter

    Lepper, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Leslie, Christopher

    Pond, Chris

    Levitt, Tom

    Pope, Greg

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Linton, Martin

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lucas, Ian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Luke, Iain

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lyons, John

    Purchase, Ken

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    McCabe, Stephen

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McCafferty, Chris

    Rapson, Syd

    MacDonald, Calum

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    McFall, John

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    McIsaac, Shona

    McKechin, Ann

    Ross, Ernie

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Roy, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Ruane, Chris

    McNulty, Tony

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McWalter, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sawford, Phil

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mann, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Southworth, Helen

    Miliband, David

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Rachel

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morgan, Julie

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morley, Elliot

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mountford, Kali

    Stringer, Graham

    Mudie, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Tami, Mark

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Todd, Mark

    Olner, Bill

    Touhig, Don

    Organ, Diana

    Truswell, Paul

    948

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Winnick, David

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tynan, Bill

    Worthington, Tony

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Wyatt Derek

    Wareing, Robert N

    White, Brian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mr. Nick Ainger.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Baker, Norman

    Keetch, Paul

    Barrett, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Beggs, Roy

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Moore, Michael

    Breed, Colin

    Oaten, Mark

    Brooke, Annette

    Öpik, Lembit

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Pugh, Dr John

    Burstow, Paul

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Rendel, David

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Chidgey, David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Cotter, Brian

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Doughty, Sue

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Thurso, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Tyler, Paul

    Hancock, Mike

    Webb, Steve

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Willis, Phil

    Heath, David

    Hermon, Lady

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Holmes, Paul

    Bob Russell and

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Tom Brake.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Clause 1

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered
      That, in respect of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, notices of amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Pearson.]

  Road Safety (Mid-Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: This week is not an especially auspicious time to have a debate on road deaths and injuries in mid-Essex. Tragically, two days ago we saw the 100th road accident in the county of Essex that involved fatality and the 110th person in that county die from such an accident. Given the concern that road safety is arousing in the county, I am delighted to see in their places the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I know that they are as concerned as me about what is happening on our roads and to our constituents.
  It is only fair to say that under both the last Conservative Government and the current Government, the Department with responsibility for transport, in whatever configuration, has been doing its utmost to try to improve road safety in this country, as well as to ensure that the roads on which we drive are safer and that drivers are of higher quality and have the ability to drive more safely.
  There is some good news. As a result of the efforts of both Governments, the number of road deaths in the past 22 years has dropped dramatically. In 1979, 6,352 deaths occurred on our roads as a result of road traffic accidents. By last year—the last full year for which we have statistics—the number of deaths had dropped to 3,409. Between 1979 and 1997, deaths and serious casualties on our roads fell by 43 per cent., drink-related road deaths fell by 68 per cent. and fatal accidents involving motor cycles fell by 62 per cent.

  In 1995 alone, there were fewer road deaths than in any year since 1926, when records began, despite the fact that there were 14 times as many vehicles on our roads. Any Government could be proud of that record. Since 1997. the Labour Government and successive Departments responsible for transport have worked to build on that success and to emulate it by making our roads safer and trying to reduce road deaths and accidents further.
  As the Minister knows, the latest 10-year road safety strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone", was launched with a specific aim, which is to
  "introduce tough new casualty reduction targets."
  At the same time, local authorities in mid-Essex—Essex county council, Chelmsford borough council, Maldon district council and Braintree district council—have spent considerable time and effort with the highways agencies and the police on trying to make our roads safer for our constituents and motorists.
  Road safety is an important factor in the construction of new roads in the area. It is also important to consider existing roads, which have accident black spots and appalling safety records, and to try to improve the road safety on them.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right that there are one or two black spots in the county where road improvements could make a significant difference. The A130 is in my constituency and
  950
  was in my hon. Friend's. He will remember the problems on that road, especially the bypass round Howe Green, and the improvement scheme that is under way and should soon be completed, which could lead to a significant drop in the statistics. Does he agree that there are several other black spots to which such improvement schemes could make an important difference?
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right. As he knows from his experience and from campaigning about the A130 bypass from Howe Green to the Rettendon turnpike, conditions on the existing road have been nightmarish. All too often, the most horrendous road accidents have occurred. They have led to far too many deaths. In addition, there are hazards for motorists who use the road for access to the villages of Danbury and Howe Green. Like my hon. Friend, I am confident that when the bypass opens, there will be a significant drop in road deaths and accidents because it has been specifically targeted as a route that will overcome the problems that posed such a danger to motorists. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that.
  Other roads in the county have a record that is less than desirable. The A120 is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Braintree. He is doubtless reassured by the prospect of the new road that will be built towards Stansted and help to alleviate the problems.
  The A12 travels up the county's spine from the M25 to Ipswich and the ports. It is a good road, but because it is more or less straight, and has three lanes in many areas, the amount of traffic, and the speed at which it travels, sometimes leads to horrendous accidents.
  Those are well-known examples in the county, but for every well-known example, I suspect that there are 10 examples of smaller roads on which, because they follow old, historic routes and have not taken into account the greatly increased traffic of the past 20 or 30 years, there are accidents involving injuries and deaths. The Government, through the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the regional office, the local authorities, the Highways Agency and the police have a positive record on seeking to eliminate unsafe aspects of our roads, as resources allow.
  There is evidence throughout the county of tougher speed limits being introduced in urban and residential areas to stop the rat-running boy racers and other problems associated with speeding in towns, which pose a serious threat to pedestrians and children in built-up areas. Changes are also being made to speed limits on trunk roads and main roads throughout the county, and there is increasing evidence of speed cameras being installed to help to bring down the number of accidents caused by speeding. There are mobile speed cameras, operated by Essex police, and the fixed ones with which we are all so familiar.
  In recent months, my constituency of West Chelmsford has seen a noticeable increase in the activity of police with mobile speed cameras, as well as in the presence of fixed ones. If I remember correctly, until a few months ago there was only one fixed speed camera in my constituency. That is no longer the case. There are now others in areas where there are opportunities for drivers to break the law by speeding.
  I particularly welcome the announcement by the Treasury of the eight pilot schemes to look into the feasibility of allowing the local authorities that install the

  951
  cameras to keep the revenue generated by them, so that they can plough that money back into providing more speed cameras for the local community. I am delighted, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Braintree are, that Essex has one of those eight pilot schemes. The scheme is currently in operation there, and I have no doubt that it will be a success.
  It is in the very nature of the beast that a speed camera that catches speeding motorists will generate revenue, and if the local authority can keep that revenue, it can invest in new cameras; they are not cheap. One of the alleged disadvantages in the past was that the money went immediately to the Treasury, so the local authorities that were having to lay out the capital investment for the cameras were not benefiting from the revenue that they were generating from the speeding vehicles. I hope that the pilot schemes will prove successful and that the Government will make that policy a permanent feature in the pilot scheme areas and possibly in the rest of the country so that everyone can enjoy the benefits that counties such as Essex are enjoying at the moment.
  It bothers me that, despite all the efforts of the Government, local authorities and the police, and despite the targets set down in the Government's strategy, "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", the appalling statistics on deaths and injuries in mid-Essex this year are bucking the national trend and seem to be impervious to the road safety initiatives. How are we going to achieve an improvement in road safety?
  The new road safety targets for the next 10 years are very challenging, as I am sure the Minister will accept. By 2010, compared to the average for 1994–1998, the targets aim to reduce by 40 per cent. the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads. The targets set a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured in that time, and a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of slight injuries.
  I do not question or challenge those figures. I hope that they will be successfully achieved in the time scale. Everybody will be delighted if that happens, because it will mean even fewer deaths and injuries on our roads nationally. The trouble is that the figures for mid-Essex over the past few years, and particularly for the 10 months of this year so far, show that it will be extraordinarily difficult to get anywhere near reaching those targets. Indeed, I wonder whether it will be possible unless something can be done.
  In 1998 in mid-Essex—the Braintree and Chelmsford police divisions, which include the constituencies of all three hon. Members in the Chamber tonight—15 people were killed and 1,558 were injured on the roads. So far this year—I only have figures for the nine months up to 30 September—35 people have been killed and 1,633 have been injured. In 1998 in Essex as a whole, 84 people were killed in road accidents, and this year, up to and including this week so far, 110 people have been killed.
  Mid-Essex is not a third of the size of the county of Essex and it certainly does not have a third of the population, yet it contributes to slightly more than a third of the deaths in the county. I am genuinely perplexed as to why. Are the accidents alcohol related? I welcome the initiative being tested by the pilot schemes, but perhaps
  952
  there is too much speeding. Is the standard of driving declining? Perhaps people are becoming immune to the dangers of driving because they drive so often. They see that 99.9 per cent. of the time they are not involved in accidents and they forget the potential dangers of losing concentration and of not always ensuring that they drive safely and within the speed limits, watching out for the actions of other drivers who cause accidents through no fault of their own.
  I do not know the answers. I am worried about that because, if one does not know the cause of a problem, it is much more difficult to find a solution and to minimise the tragedies. I certainly do not have a panacea for getting back on track in reducing road accidents and deaths, although I know that it is not an easy problem to solve. I shall therefore be genuinely interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I hope that her Department has some idea of what might be done to improve the situation. It might have more up-to-date information and statistics showing why road safety has deteriorated in my part of the country, which seems to be at variance with what is happening nationwide.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: With the Minister's leave, I hope to say a few words in support of my constituency neighbour—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has the permission of the Minister and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to take part in the debate?
  Mr. Hurst: I sought the permission of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I was about to seek the Minister's permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I support most of the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. One can speculate about the reasons for the unusually high number of road traffic accidents in mid-Essex. For example, we have had an exceptional amount of rain in the past nine months—but then again, so have other parts of Essex and the United Kingdom. Essex has also had exceptional population growth around the constituency of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, on the edge of the constituency of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and certainly around the main town in my constituency. Houses are being built at an enormous rate, creating much more traffic.
  Another factor is the various road schemes to which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford referred. The Great Leighs bypass is proceeding very rapidly, and the A 130 is progressing rapidly into the southern part of Chelmsford. We are also awaiting development of the Hatfield Peverel to Witham link road, which I should like to mention very briefly, and which has featured in previous Adjournment debates.
  It was announced as long ago as January 1998 that that link road would proceed. Since then, preparation for the scheme has meandered very slowly, only now to be confronted with a public inquiry. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber would like that public inquiry

  953
  itself to proceed quickly, with a view to our having a road at least before the fifth anniversary of the announcement of the scheme.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hatfield Peverel. He will be as horribly familiar with the roadworks there as I have become in the past few weeks. Does he think that it is possible that, because those roadworks are causing such huge congestion to motorists trying to use the A12, many people are leaving the A12 to seek alternative routes, causing a build-up of traffic on minor roads that were probably never designed to cope with the number of cars now using them because of the roadworks? That in itself may be contributing to the problem and is another reason why we all want those roadworks to be completed as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Hurst: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's speculation on the issue. On a number of occasions recently I have crossed back-country lanes through his constituency and my own to avoid those roadworks.
  I do not think that any of those factors alone have created the increase in road traffic accidents. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford emphasised the consequences of speeding. Another enemy to road safety that is growing apace is the practice of tailgating. In 1963, when I qualified to drive motorcars, my late father told me, "Whatever you do, son, keep back from the vehicle in front if you wish to overtake." It seems that that policy has disappeared and that the policy of other drivers is to get as close as they can to the vehicle in front so that they can overtake quickly. The practice creates a dangerous situation on many roads on which it is not possible to manoeuvre.
  I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I should like to see a concerted campaign by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to reduce the practice of tailgating and draw people's attention to its risk. It is a major hazard and is probably a major determinant of road accidents.
  I think that, with the road schemes that are proceeding, the future for mid-Essex is probably brighter. At least those roads will become safer. I also agree entirely that, by its nature, dualling of the A120 west to Stansted will assist greatly. Of course, we also look forward to a sensitive scheme that creates a better carriageway through to the A12 east of Braintree. I believe that such a scheme is being considered. However, it will have to take very acute account of the villages and environment between Braintree and the A12.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): Let me begin by extending condolences that I am sure the whole House will wish to extend to the families of those bereaved in the most recent accident. Let me also acknowledge the depth of concern about the subject among Members representing the constituencies involved—shown, I think, by the attendance of a number of Essex Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is also present.
  954
  I do not want to go into all the figures, because the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has set them out very clearly. So far we have made good progress towards achieving what are ambitious targets for dealing with road deaths and road accidents, although of course each death is one too many, and our task will not be completed until we have made such accidents a thing of the past. I want to focus on Essex, however, and on the issues that have been raised tonight.
  The local transport plan for Essex county council contains targets to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured that are very much in line with national targets. The recently submitted annual progress report, which presents progress in the first year of the plan, shows that 1,122 people were killed and seriously injured on the roads of Essex in 2000. That is 5 per cent. less than the 1994–98 average. The number of children killed and seriously injured was already 18 per cent. below the baseline average.
  Because of the hon. Gentleman's special interest, my Department also obtained more up-to-date figures for Essex from the county council. I can therefore tell him that 9 per cent. fewer people were killed or seriously injured in the 12 months ending in August 2001 than in the previous 12 months. I hope to see a further overall reduction in the number killed and seriously injured on the roads of Essex in the calendar year 2001 compared with 2000, showing that Essex is working hard to play its part in meeting the national target reductions.
  However, as the hon. Gentleman said, there are some specific problems within the overall figures. He said that there had been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of people killed on the roads in the same August-to-August period. That apparent reversal of a previous downward trend is very disturbing, and I share his concern. I understand that the increase is largely due to more accidents and casualties involving motorcyclists. Indeed, over the same period non-motorcycling deaths fell by 6 per cent. 1 have asked my Department to work closely with Essex county council and the police to establish the reasons behind the increases, and to look at ways of combating the problem.
  I understand that the county council has reported a significant increase in the number of motorcyclists on the roads in Essex in recent years, and that there has been a sharp increase in leisure motorcycling. That is not confined to young people; older people have returned to riding motorbikes as a leisure activity. Already a working partnership between the police and local authorities, including Chelmsford borough council, has been set up to identify why that is happening and to look at some of the profound issues that it raises, including safety issues.
  The police are offering motorcyclists in Essex an opportunity to improve and develop their riding skills through a recent initiative, which seeks to reduce motorcycle injury and theft. It is called "the edge". and the hon. Gentleman may well have heard about it. I am sure that he could use his high profile on the whole issue of road safety to support the project. The county council will soon publish a motorcycling strategy setting out a number of related actions that will work together to create better motorcycling facilities in the county, and to promote safer motorcycling.
  My Department is examining the disproportionately high casualty rate among motorcyclists. We are working closely with organisations in the industry, riders,

  955
  manufacturers, retailers and instructors to develop better training and testing programmes, to consider the need for extra protection for both vehicle and rider, and to raise awareness of the vulnerability of motorcyclists among all road users.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of speed in accidents. It is believed that excessive speed is probably one of the main contributory factors in road traffic accidents. In Essex, about 26 per cent. of all road accidents are related to speeding. That is a reduction from 32 per cent. five years ago. For accidents involving fatalities, the figure rises to a quite staggering 90 per cent. Research evidence shows that 70 per cent. of vehicles exceed the 30 mph speed limit.
  We are committed to reducing excessive speeding on all our roads. It is one of the highest priorities for accident reduction. We have a number of programmes involving education, training, highway engineering and enforcement, as well as speed cameras, of course.
  As far back as 1996, Essex county council launched a speed commitment campaign to encourage local drivers to sign a commitment to drive within the speed limit at all times, which has been very successful. Thousands of organisations and individual motorists have signed up.
  The local transport plan for Essex sets out some new initiatives. Particular emphasis is being placed on the need to change attitudes to speed among the young and among inexperienced drivers, who remain one of the largest groups in the casualty statistics. I am very encouraged by the work that is being done to train and educate our motorists about the antisocial dangers of speeding, as well of course as the problem of tailgating.
  We are also encouraging all local authorities to improve the standards of their road network and to apply accident reduction engineering measures to accident clusters. Essex has about 200 sites that are receiving attention, with many grouped together in a whole route action plan. I understand that this year's programme includes the implementation of action plans for the A1060 Chelmsford to Bishop's Stortford road and the B1018 Braintree to Witham road. The construction of the new A131 Great Leighs bypass and the A 130 improvements are also well under way.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems on the A12 and the improvements there, so he may want some more information about the progress that is being made. The improvements to the A12 are currently being considered as part of the London to Ipswich multi-modal study, which started in October 2000 and will report to the regional planning body in June 2002. The highway authorities are undertaking a route management strategy along the A12, to include measures over the next 10 years. Although, unfortunately, it will not happen straight away, there will be steady and progressive improvements along that route.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the role of safety cameras. In April 2000, we launched the trial scheme that allows the funding of speed and red light safety cameras by "netting off', with money collected from fixed penalty speeding fines being reinvested into more cameras. The Essex partnership was one of the first to join the scheme, as indeed was my own local authority.
  956
  Results from the first year of operation have been very encouraging, and hon. Members will recall that the Minister for Transport announced in August this year that the scheme would be rolled out nationally. Across the eight areas that made up the initial trial there has been a 47 per cent. reduction in the number killed and seriously injured at camera sites and an 18 per cent. reduction elsewhere in the pilot areas.
  Quite often, the cameras are not the most popular things, because they have produced quite a lot of speeding tickets, but if one considers the number of people who are alive now who would not have been otherwise, it is easy to see that they have been extremely worth while. In Essex, before the introduction of the scheme, 68 per cent. of motorists exceeded the speed limit at camera sites. That has now fallen to 11 per cent
  I want to touch on issues of local transport funding, because the importance of local authorities and the police working together to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads cannot be overstated. The introduction of the local transport plans means that authorities must now have clear strategies for road safety in their areas. The draft road safety strategy for Essex has been out to consultation and I understand that it will be published shortly.
  In December last year we allocated Essex £13 million for integrated transport, including road safety, in its local transport plan. That was more than double the allocation for integrated transport in the previous year. It will enable Essex to make real progress in meeting the challenging targets that have been set. I cannot comment today on the allocation to Essex for next year, but the announcement will be made shortly—we expect it to be made next month. However, I can say that Essex can proceed with some confidence on the basis of the indicative allocations for the rest of the five-year plan period.
  We are committed to working with all local authorities to see a significant reduction in road deaths and injuries and to make road safety a high priority. I know that much work remains to be done and I agree that any death or injury on our roads is an unnecessary tragedy. I am. however, convinced that we can see a significant reduction in the accident statistics in the future. Given the problems that Essex has experienced, I am sure that that will be very welcome to the constituents of those hon. Members present for this debate.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford has done well to raise several important issues regarding road deaths and injuries in mid-Essex. I know that he has kept a consistently high profile on the issue and ensured that it is at the forefront of the public debate. The Government, through the road safety strategy, have already begun to tackle many of those issues on a national level, but we will continue to rely heavily on the direct help of local authorities and the police in striving to achieve our road casualty reduction figures. Further effort on all our parts will bring about the improvements in road safety that we all seek, and will protect lives and reduce some of the horrendous injuries that too many people in Essex and elsewhere have suffered over the years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 81) (HC 276) on 2001–02 Special Grant for Gypsy Sites Refurbishment, which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 1.

  Division No. 61]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clwyd, Ann

  Austin, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bailey, Adrian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Baker, Norman

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Barrett, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Battle, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corston, Jean

  Beard, Nigel

  Cotter, Brian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Beggs, Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Benn, Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Betts, Clive

  Crausby, David

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Breed, Colin

  David, Wayne

  Brooke, Annette

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bryant, Chris

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burnham, Andy

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burnside, David

  Dodds, Nigel

  Burstow, Paul

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Doughty, Sue

  Cairns, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caplin, Ivor

  Etherington, Bill

  Casale, Roger

  Farrelly, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Challen, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foulkes, George

  958

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gapes, Mike

  Laws, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Levitt, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Lucas, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Luke, Iain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lyons, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hancock, Mike

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harvey, Nick

  MacDonald, Calum

  Havard, Dai

  McFall, John

  Healey, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Heath, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKechin, Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Heppell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Heyes, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hill, Keith

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mallaber, Judy

  Holmes, Paul

  Mann, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miliband, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moore, Michael

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Moran, Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Julie

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Oaten, Mark

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Owen, Albert

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Perham, Linda

  Keetch, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Kelly, Ruth

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pike, Peter

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

  Plaskitt, James

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lamb, Norman

  Purchase, Ken

  Lammy, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  959

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Rapson, Syd

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Rendel, David

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

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Soley, Clive

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Southworth, Helen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Squire, Rachel

  Ross, Ernie

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Roy, Frank

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ruane, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Ruddock, Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Ryan, Joan

  Stringer, Graham

  Salter, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sanders, Adrian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Sawford, Phil

  Tami, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  960

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Watts, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Webb, Steve

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  White, Brian

  Thurso, John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams. Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Willis, Phil

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winterton, Ms Rose (Doncaster C)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Worthington, Tony

  Tyler, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth).

  Tynan, Bill

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wyatt. Derek

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Wareing, Robert N

  NOES

  Hunter, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.