Sitting of 6 April 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  NEW WRIT
  Ordered,
  That Madam Speaker do issue her Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Romsey in the room of Michael Keith Beale Colvin, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  NEW WRIT
    PRIVATE BUSINESS

      LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL (LORDS] (BY ORDER)
      Order for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered on Thursday 13 April.

      MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 April.

      MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
      Order for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Wednesday 19 April at 7 o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of the impact of the changes to the working families tax credit announced in the Budget.[116600]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Three million people have now inquired on our special telephone line about working families tax credit. There are already 1 million families with children receiving the new working families tax credit, including almost 100,000 receiving the child care tax credit. Following the changes that I announced in the Budget, the minimum income guarantee for a family with someone in full-time work will be £207 a week from June this year—£80 more than the family would receive on income
    1134
    support—and it will be £214 a week from April 2001. Taking all our measures together, the changes introduced since 1997 will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know that the extra help will be warmly welcomed by more than 2,000 lower-paid families in my constituency, Conwy. Does he share my sadness that the Conservative party has learned so little that it would scrap the working families tax credit and thereby bring back the despair, distress and heartache felt by so many hard-working families before the general election of May 1997, after 18 years of a Tory Government?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Not only are 60,000 people in Wales benefiting from the working families tax credit, but in almost every constituency in the country there are at least 1,000 families who are now receiving, on average, £24 more per week. Abolition of the measure would mean a tax rise of £24 a week for working families. I do not think that any party should contemplate that.
    The response to the working families tax credit is quite different from what the Opposition predicted. Three million people have inquired about it and 1 million people are on it. I believe that more people will want to join it. We are achieving two things: we are making work pay, and we are taking children out of poverty.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: I know that the Chancellor likes to swagger and boast about the working families tax credit, but if it really is the greatest thing since sliced bread, as he claims, why is he proposing to abolish it? Having made such play of the fact that it should be paid through the wage packet, why is he proposing that the replacement benefit should be paid to the carer? Is it not the case that, for such a clever fellow, the Chancellor has got himself into a complete muddle and has made the benefit an unholy mess?
    Mr. Brown: We are doing what should have been done years ago. We are making work pay for working families. I take it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Opposition Members will listen. I take it from the shadow Chancellor's remarks that the next Conservative Government, if there were one, would abolish the working families tax credit. What the shadow Chancellor must now explain—[Interruption.]Opposition Members are very restive this morning. They are clearly on edge about a measure that is popular within the country.
    We will expand the working families tax credit by creating an integrated children's credit and an employment credit. We will achieve two things: first, we will make work pay and, secondly, we will tackle child poverty.
    I should have thought that the shadow Chancellor would think twice before wanting to abolish the benefit. In the Sunday Times of 20 September 1998, he stated:
    Conservatism has become inextricably connected with uncaring social attitudes, selfish behaviour and sleaze. Of course it should be apologetic for mismanaging the economy.
    Those are his words.
    Mr. Portillo: Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer the question? If the benefit is so good, why is he abolishing it? If it is so important that it is paid

    1135
    through the wage packet, why is he going to change it so that it is paid to carers? It is all very well him preening himself on the working families tax credit; does he not do that because he wants to obscure the real damage that he has done to hard-working families?
    Is not the Chancellor less than honest when he speaks of the reducing tax burdens on families, when he knows that that applies only to a family who does not drink, does not smoke, does not drive, does not save, does not have a mortgage, is not married, does not have a pension and does not go on holiday? He knows that real families are not like that. He knows that the real position is that the average family now has to pay £670 more a year. Why will not the Chancellor be honest with us? Why does Mr. Toad have to be so slippery?
    Mr. Brown: We will expand the working families tax credit; the Opposition are trying to abolish it. People will know at the next general election that the Opposition want to abolish not only the new deal and put thousands of people out of work, but the working families tax credit. That would lead to a tax rise of £24 a week. We know from last week's votes in the House that they did not support the first spending measure on the health service or the cigarette tax, which will provide £400 million. They would make working families worse off by cutting into health service expenditure. We are on the side of working families; the Opposition are the enemy of those families.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Ms Rosie Winterton: What estimate he has made of the impact which changes in savings limits will have on pensioner incomes. [116601]
    Ms Linda Perham: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase the incomes of the poorest pensioners. [116614]
    Ms Sandra Osborne: How many pensioners will benefit from the increases in the minimum income guarantee in Scotland. [116615]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): An estimated 500,000 pensioners will gain an average of £5.05 a week as a direct result of the changes to the savings limit that I announced in the Budget. The minimum income guarantee will increase next week to at least £78.45 for the youngest single pensioners and £131.05 for pensioner couples aged 80 and above.
    The minimum income guarantee benefits approximately 1.5 million pensioners, of whom 165,000 live in Scotland. In each area of the country, our take-up campaign is designed to ensure that more pensioners can benefit from the measures that are due to them.
    Ms Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his changes have been widely welcomed in Yorkshire and Humberside? Thousands of pensioners will benefit from them. That is in stark contrast with the treatment of pensioners when the Tory party was in power. Will he assure me that the longer-term review that he announced
    1136
    will have at its heart a commitment to ensuring that pensioners who have saved a little and perhaps have a small income will be rewarded, not penalised?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful for that question, because we will publish a discussion document on a new pensioner credit to help exactly that group of pensioners, whose savings and modest occupational pensions should not penalise them by preventing them from receiving benefits that are due to them. Again, I believed that all parties would support that.
    The measures that we introduced in the Budget and in previous Budgets, such as the winter fuel allowance, which will increase to £150, free colour television licences for 3 million pensioners, which will be introduced in November for those over 75, and the minium income guarantee, which relieves poverty, mean that 1 million pensioners are approximately £1,000 better off than they would have been under a Conservative Government. We are keeping our promises to pensioners, and we shall do more.
    People understand from the events of the past week, especially from the statements of the Opposition social security spokesman, that the Conservative party will not even guarantee to keep the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. So much for talk of a caring attitude. The shadow Chancellor was right; the Conservatives are guilty of selfish attitudes yesterday, today and tomorrow.
    Ms Perham: I welcome the increases in the minimum income guarantee, but does the Chancellor accept that some people will not claim it? He has announced many measures that have already been introduced for pensioners, but many pensioners in my constituency complain about the small increase in the basic pension. Does my right hon. Friend have anything more to say to them?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, we have followed the rules of inflation that the previous Government pursued in calculating the basic pension. From April 2001, we expect the basic pension to increase by £2 or more for single people and by £3 or more for couples, based on our forecast for inflation in September.
    At the same time, we unfroze the income limits for the pensioners about whom my hon. Friend is especially worried. Those limits deprived 500,000 pensioners of the benefits of the minimum income guarantee. We raised the income limit from £3,000 to £6,000 and raised the total ceiling from £8,000 to £12,000. Those ceilings had been in play since 1988 and 1990. Nothing had been done under the previous Government. We have taken action to help those pensioners whose savings should not debar them from getting the benefits they are due.
    Ms Osborne: I also welcome the fact that 165,000 Scottish pensioners will benefit from the minimum income guarantee, but I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the concerns among pensioners in my constituency of Ayr. In the Budget, I was pleased to hear about the review and the fact that the needs of pensioners with modest incomes who are above minimum income

    1137
    guarantee levels will also be examined. What opportunities will there be for pensioners in my constituency to have an input to the discussion document?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and in all constituencies in this country will take up the benefits that they are due as a result of the take-up campaign launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. We have raised the personal allowances for pensioners higher than the rates of inflation for those who pay tax, and 60 per cent. of pensioners no longer pay, or do not pay, tax. At the same time, we are determined to take more pensioners out of poverty and I believe that the combination of the minimum income guarantee, the winter allowance and the discussion that we are having about the pensioners credit is the right way forward. It is a scandal that more than 1 million pensioners were in poverty when we came to power. We are taking action.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Chancellor regret having misled millions of pensioners on Budget day when he—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman rephrase that sentence? I do not think that Chancellors mislead. We do not use that word.
    Mr. Chope: Perhaps the Chancellor unintentionally misled. I shall refer to the text if necessary, but on Budget day he said that the changes in the savings limits for pensioners would take effect from next April. On Budget day, next April was April 2000. We now find that those changes will not take place until April 2001. As a result of the misuse of the English language, many millions of pensioners were misled.
    Mr. Brown: First, 500,000 pensioners benefit from that measure. Secondly, they were not misled at all. All the documentation made the position absolutely clear, as did my speech. Thirdly, if the Conservatives are to resort to those tactics, they have very little to say to pensioners. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate us because 11,000 pensioners in his constituency will get free colour television licences as a result of what we have done, which the Conservatives would never have done.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: As pensioners collect their measly 75p increase this week, might they not wonder exactly what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister meant when they wrote in the Labour manifesto that pensioners as a whole would share in the growing wealth of the economy? According to the Government's own figures in a parliamentary question this week, pensioners will get a lower share of the national economy this year than in the last year under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that anybody will take lectures from the Liberal party. It never supported the winter fuel allowance; we introduced it. It never supported the minimum income guarantee; we introduced it. It never supported raising the savings limits; we have done that. The Liberals quote a House of Commons answer by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, but it does not include free eye tests,
    1138
    the cut in VAT on fuel, what we have done on transport and what we have done to deal with the regulation of the utilities and to keep fuel bills down. The truth is that, by the end of this Parliament, pensioners will be getting £800 million more a year than they would have got even if we had raised the pension in line with earnings. The Liberal party said that the pension should be raised in line with inflation. It is being absolutely hypocritical.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We use "hypocritical" no more than we use "misled" in the House.[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the Chancellor will oblige the House by withdrawing "hypocritical".
    Mr. Brown: I withdraw what I said. The Liberals have been unintentionally hypocritical.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, when referring to all the measures that he has taken to help pensioners, he should also refer to the £5 billion raid on pension funds? Is it not the attack on pension funds that has done so much damage to the livelihood of pensioners? The right hon. Gentleman should not forget that.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on what we have done for the economy. The valuation of the assets held by pension funds has risen by about 60 or 70 per cent. since we came to power. That is no thanks to the Conservatives, who would have brought us back to boom and bust.

    All-employee Share Plan
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: What steps he is taking to promote the new all-employee share plan. [116602]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): A number of steps have been taken. A thousand company representatives have attended presentations around the country on the new all-employee scheme, and further training events are being planned for employers. The Trades Union Congress is working with us to inform employees, and Members of Parliament are being sent material to help them to explain the advantages of the plan in the course of their constituency work.
    Mr. Ennis: The scheme is fully supported by all trade unions. They have campaigned for it for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will greatly reduce the old "us and them" attitude that used to prevail among company bosses and their employees?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Encouraging employee share ownership enables us both to boost productivity and to promote fairness. We know from research that employee share ownership boosts productivity, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it also helps to ensure that the benefits of company success are spread fairly. The TUC has made an important contribution to the consultation, and I shall meet TUC policy officers this afternoon to discuss it.

    1139
    The scheme is a clear example of our ability to build a modern economy and a decent economy at the same time.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: When the Financial Secretary and his colleagues designed the brilliant new national insurance contribution for high-tech companies and their share prices, did they mean to tax success? Did they know that they were creating an unquantifiable contingent liability, which would appear on those companies' balance sheets? Are they aware that Oracle and other high-tech companies are now joining Cisco in the emigration queues, and what are they going to do about it?
    Mr. Timms: As the hon. Gentleman knows, consultation is under way on employers' national insurance on share options. I am engaged in discussion with the firms affected about how best to solve the problem, and we expect to be able to present proposals sooner rather than later.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Cisco. I am pleased to say that Cisco was an enthusiastic participant in a seminar that we had last week on how our welfare-to-work policies and programmes could be used to benefit the information technology industry. For that industry and, indeed, the whole economy, the economic success that we are currently enjoying is extremely good news.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome given to the employee share ownership measures in the Budget by organisations such as ProShare, Capital Strategies and Job Ownership? Although the last Government talked a lot about employee share ownership, they delivered very little. Is that not the big difference? We have really broken through.
    A number of organisations are helping to promote employee share ownership. Could my hon. Friend have a word with the Department of Trade and Industry? Perhaps it could get on to the bandwagon, through the Small Business Service and its other agencies, to promote employee share ownership as an important new economic development building a partnership economy, as opposed to the two-class economy that the Tories have always supported.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right. There has been wide support for the consultation on the new plan, in which many firms, organisations and trade unions are taking part. This is a partnership effort, and the wide welcome given by the Confederation of British Industry and others to the details of the plan announced in the Budget testifies to the success of our approach.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Government's new enthusiasm for the long-standing Liberal policy of worker share ownership.
    Does the Financial Secretary agree that the number of such schemes is so utterly derisory—1,750 companies are using them, out of millions—because of the convoluted, time-consuming procedures engaged in by the Inland Revenue in its valuation of unquoted companies? What does he propose to do to alleviate the problem?
    Mr. Timms: We aim to double the number of companies that have an all-employee share scheme
    1140
    through the measures that we are taking. Many companies, particularly smaller ones, have welcomed the arrangements in the new plan. In finalising the details, we have taken account of the position of unlisted companies. They will particularly welcome the changes in the latest details that we have announced.

    Business Education
    Mr. Jon Trickett: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase opportunities to learn about business in schools in unemployment blackspots, with particular reference to former coal-mining areas. [116603]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): We are providing an extra £10 million in this financial year to enhance education-business link activities in England, including in high unemployment areas. On 11 May, we are launching Enterprise Insight, a campaign to inspire young people to follow careers in enterprise, which will focus initially on young people and high unemployment areas.
    Mr. Trickett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the initiatives that she has announced. I hope that, shortly, there will also be a welcome announcement on state aid to the coal industry. Is she aware of the work in schools such as Hemsworth high and Minsthorpe community college, which seek to bring together the education and business sectors in areas of long-term decline? Will she seek to build on that work? After all, the future regeneration of areas such as mine and those represented by many other hon. Members depends on today's younger people.
    Miss Johnson: Yes, I certainly support the work in my hon. Friend's constituency and recognise its importance, as, I am sure, he recognises the importance of the work that the Government have done to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in schools, so that young people will be equipped for the world of work. I am sure that he recognises, too, the progress that we have made as a result of initiatives to reduce unemployment throughout the country.
    In my hon. Friend's constituency, youth unemployment is down by 68 per cent. since the last election and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. Those figures clearly show that business-education partnerships will be working in fertile territory in building for young people for the future.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Economic Secretary regret that the Government's announcement that they will abolish training and enterprise councils will lead to the removal of business input to training, including in schools?
    Miss Johnson: No, I do not regret the change. The TECs were strong in some areas, but discredited in others. A number of difficulties had arisen. Our initiative in that regard, coupled with the work of the new Small Business Service, will do only more to enhance support to small and medium enterprises throughout the country. When we set all that in the context of the fact that we are able to provide a stable economic climate in which business can

    1141
    flourish—unlike the boom and bust of the Tory years—we realise that those will make a positive contribution in a climate in which business can flourish and is flourishing.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On the question of coal mining communities, the hon. Lady might know that, on Tuesday, there was a substantial lobby of people from the various coal mining communities in the United Kingdom. The Welsh representatives, a cross-party group, were desperately worried about the absence of additional funding, or any commitment from the Chancellor to provide that, to secure objective 1 funding. Had he done something about it, the Prime Minister would not today have to be in the south Wales valleys, trying to shore up the haemorrhaging Labour vote.
    Miss Johnson: Objective 1 status is a matter for the spending review. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is forgetting the enormous progress that has been made in his constituency through the new deal in lowering both long-term and youth unemployment, and the initiatives that have already been launched in respect of the coal fields, which include new provision of £60 million over three years to fund the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and Coalfield Enterprise Fund. A further initiative, Network Space Ltd., has been established as a joint venture between English Partnerships and the private sector to provide workspace sites in former coal fields and to create yet more jobs.

    Withdrawal of Tax Allowances
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: How many families that qualified for the married couples allowance in 1999–2000 will not qualify for the child tax credit in 2001–02. [116605]
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many married couples will be liable for higher-rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance. [116607]
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the impact on married couples reaching pensionable age after 6 April of his withdrawal of tax allowances to date. [116613]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As a result of the measures that we have taken in this and previous Budgets, pensioner households will, from next April, be on average £400 a year better off, and families with children will be on average £850 a year better off. The number of couples liable for higher rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance will be zero.
    Mrs. Gillan: Why is the Minister congenitally incapable of answering the question on the Order Paper? As that answer bore no relation to my question, I shall tell him that, today, 10 million people lose the married couples tax allowance, and that, of those 10 million people, 5 million will not qualify for the child tax credit. Is the Minister proud to be part of a Government who have removed the last recognition of marriage from the tax system and a Government whose stealth taxes mean
    1142
    that the typical, decent, hard-working family is paying £670 a year more in tax? Does not the way in which this Government are robbing the family make Maxwell look like an amateur?
    Mr. Smith: The Budget's success has clearly upset Conservative Members. My colleagues and I are proud to be members of a Government who are focusing resources on families with children and tackling the obscenity of the extent of United Kingdom child poverty which we inherited from the previous, Conservative Administration. The fact is that 5 million families will benefit from the child credit. Moreover, from next week, people will see the record increase in child benefit—£15 for the first child and £10 for others. From June, they will see the increase in the working families tax credit—£4.35 extra for a child under 16. From next April, they will see the children's tax credit of £8.50 a week. Families are benefiting from those measure because we are a Government who are working hard for hard-working families—whereas the previous, Conservative Government consigned millions of children to poverty.
    Mr. Swayne: Madam Speaker, do you think that the Chief Secretary's failure to answer question 7 was intentional or unintentional? The question is quite simple, and the answer has to be a number. I have asked the question twice before, but twice before the Chief Secretary has failed to give me the answer. How many families is it? My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says that it is 10 million. Is it 10 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to say the answer?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman not only did not listen to my answer, but seems not to have read his own question. His question was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
    How many married couples will be liable for higher—rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance.
    I gave him the answer: it is zero.
    Mr. Brady: Are not the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, in their Budget tax increase, which is effective today, also hitting 200,000 pensioner couples who this year will lose the married couples allowance? Will not those couples each be up to £500 a year worse off? Is not the Government's policy hitting hardest those who, in the Chancellor's phrase, are "most prudent" and have made some provision for themselves?
    Mr. Smith: It is very important on this question to underline that those pensioners who get the married couples allowance have not lost it as a consequence of our changes. Moreover, those who become pensioners from today will benefit not only from the higher rate of personal allowances, but from the introduction of a £150 winter allowance—which Conservative Members would take away from them—and a lop tax rate on savings which we have introduced and which benefits 1.5 million pensioners. The minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners will give 1 million poor pensioner couples £1,000 a year more than they were receiving under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The people of Eccles and Salford welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. The situation is a great improvement on what the Tories left. Does he agree that he should take no lessons from the Liberals, who were irresponsible in the city of Salford by suggesting an illegal budget, supported by their leader?
    Mr. Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. He is right that we should accept no lectures from Opposition Members. However, we cannot let the issue go without mentioning that when the current shadow Chancellor was taking the axe to the married couples allowance, he said:
    We have considered the tax system and chosen the allowances that appear to have the least on-going justification or to be the most anomalous.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 348.]
    Those are the words of the Conservatives.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any political party needs credibility on taxation? Does he also agree that to promise to cut taxation year on year, regardless of economic circumstances, while at the same time promising to match our huge spending commitments to schools and hospitals is not only incredible, but the most sure-fire way of returning to the economics of boom and bust? If one believes recent newspaper articles, it is a policy with which even the shadow Chancellor does not agree.
    Mr. Smith: Absolutely. The last time that the Conservatives made similar promises, they broke them all. They brought in the 22 tax rises and put VAT on fuel when they promised not to do so. Their sums do not add up. They cannot promise the so-called tax guarantee and at the same time say that they will maintain our levels of health spending. When they had the chance on the Budget, they refused to vote for the first £400 million for the health service from the tobacco tax.

    Petrol Duty
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: What recent representations he has received on the level of petrol duty. [116606]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Before the Budget, Treasury Ministers received a number of representations about the level of petrol duty. Representations were received from the AA, the RAC and the Petrol Retailers Association. In addition, many private individuals contacted their Members of Parliament, who then wrote to Treasury Ministers on their behalf.
    Mr. Soames: The Paymaster General will recognise that all those people will have been gravely disappointed by the outcome of the Budget. Will she confirm that the average motorist is now paying more than £200 extra a year in petrol tax under Labour? Does she not realise that for many people, particularly in rural areas, a car is essential, not a luxury, as it is for her? Does she further agree that with the regrettable closure of banks and other rural services, old people are being put at a grave disadvantage, with inadequate means to support a car?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in the House. I remind him that his party introduced the
    1144
    escalator. In the Budget we made no real increase in the level of petrol duty—the lowest increase for nearly a decade. The Conservatives failed to match that in government. I take his concern for people living in rural areas with a pinch of salt, because when the Conservative Government had the opportunity to act, they failed to do so.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: I welcome the decision to have no real increase in petrol duty this year. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that much of the recent price rise in petrol has been a result of profit taking by oil companies, perhaps including the oil exploration company Kerr McGee, to which the shadow Chancellor is a paid consultant?
    Dawn Primarolo: The world price of oil has clearly contributed to the rise in prices at petrol pumps. That is outside the control of the Government. The AA welcomed the Budget, for the first time in a decade. It particularly welcomed the £280 million investment in the transport fund and the fact that there was no real increase in the price of petrol.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Minister explain why the penal rate of tax on vehicle petrol is justified on environmental grounds—presumably to discourage use—when the Government reduced the tax on domestic fuel, which causes even more pollution?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be staking out a policy on behalf of the Opposition for raising VAT on domestic fuel and returning to the habits of Conservatives when in government, which the shadow Chancellor continually denounces. The Opposition need to make up their minds. Do they or do they not agree with reaching the Kyoto targets? Do they or do they not agree that we should have environmental obligations? If they do, will they explain why they oppose every measure to meet these obligations and deny all the steps that they took to take us further away from them?
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the removal of the fuel escalator—without doubt, its removal was welcomed throughout the country—but those of us who represent rural areas wish to see a way forward to reduce the cost of travel within our areas. Between now and the next Budget. what policies can be brought forward to make petrol cheaper and to ensure that rural petrol stations continue to survive?
    Dawn Primarolo: I remind my hon. Friend that the Government took note of the particular problems for those living in rural areas and the transport difficulties that they experience, first with the transport fund and secondly with the reduction in vehicle excise duty, especially for the owners of smaller vehicles. The Government's policy across vehicle excise duty, petrol prices and investment in transport offers a balanced way forward both for those who live in rural areas and for those who live in our cities.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Will the Minister confirm that by using the little trick of raising petrol duty by an inflation index of 3.4 per cent.

    1145
    in comparison with the 1.2 per cent. inflation index for personal allowances, the Government have levied a further £500 million of tax on British working families?
    Dawn Primarolo: I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman has never been in government, so I suppose he can be forgiven for not knowing how the tax system works. The methodology used for this year's increase is exactly the same as that which has been used in previous years. It is the same methodology that the Conservative Government used.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): What progress he has made in securing matching public funds for EU objective regions. [6608]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Discussions are under way between Government and the English objective programme partnerships about identifying the match funding which regions need. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry are taking the lead. My right hon. Friends the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions have undertaken to meet again the all-party parliamentary group on objective to discuss progress. I would describe that progress as very encouraging.
    Mr. George: In the unseemly scramble to claim credit for securing objective status, will the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to ensure that there are adequate public match funds in place? Given that his colleagues in both MAFF and the DTI do not have sufficient and adequate match funds and that there are three other Government Departments with responsibilities in this area, does he agree that it is imperative that the Treasury steps in, takes the lead and at Cabinet level ensures that this golden opportunity is not mishandled?
    Mr. Smith: As I have made clear to the House previously, we are in touch with all the Departments concerned and in close discussions as part of the spending review. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who wrote to the partnerships on 24 March, was able to report good progress on precisely the issues that the hon. Gentleman is raising. There is progress on helping partnerships to identify a full range of match-funding sources, exploring the possibility of adjusting matching rates between programme measures and years; the use of some regional selective assistance as match funding; MAFF funding; on-going discussions with the Commission on increasing the flexibility between the private and public sector contributions to match funding; and the announcements in the Budget of the venture capital fund; which will greatly assist the regions, and also the £50 million for clusters. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members who are concerned about objective 1 in the English regions, west Wales and the valleys that every effort is being made in government to ensure that match funding is secured.
    Mr. David Watts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and other Treasury Ministers on the work that they have done over the past few months to resolve the immediate problem of match funding for
    1146
    objective 1 structural funds. However, does not he agree that the long-term problem can be resolved only by changing the Treasury rules, achieving more joined-up government and finding more inventive ways to ensure that we do not have to look for match funding every year?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for what we have achieved with regard to objective 1 funding. We should not forget that it was the Government's success at Berlin and subsequently that secured objective 1 boosts for Cornwall, south Yorkshire and Merseyside worth £300 million, £700 million and more than £800 million, respectively.
    We are continually looking at how we can improve the arrangements for securing match funding but, as I said, I am greatly encouraged by the progress that we are making. I shall keep in close touch with my hon. Friend, and with other hon. Members who are concerned about this matter, to ensure that the regions get the benefit that they need and which they were denied by the Conservative Government.

    Corporate Tax
    Mr. Bill Tynan: If he will make a statement on corporate tax rates (a) in the UK and (b) in other European Union countries. [116610]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Our main rate of corporation tax is the lowest among the major industrialised countries and our small companies rate is one of the most competitive in the European Union. We have cut both by three percentage points since taking office. I am pleased to say that our new starting rate of 10 per cent., which was introduced this month specifically for small companies, is the lowest rate in the EU. About 270,000 companies will benefit from the starting rate. By means of that and other measures, we have established a stable, low-rate, competitive tax environment, in which business can thrive.
    Mr. Tynan: On behalf of the business community in my constituency of Hamilton, South, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his promotion of business-friendly policies. Does he agree with the director of the Institute of Directors who, the morning after the Budget, said that the Government were creating an enterprise culture in this country? Does he also agree that the Conservative Government's policy of increasing taxes, promoting boom-and-bust economics and amassing large debts created bad conditions for business?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the measures in the Budget. He is quite right: the Institute of Directors applauded the Budget for what it did to establish an enterprise culture. Those measures include our capital gains tax reforms, the lop tax rate, the shortening of the tapers, the help for unquoted companies and the promotion of employee share ownership, which we discussed earlier.
    It was, indeed, a Budget for enterprise. It will foster stability, to replace the boom and bust that did so much damage under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Under this Government, business in this country has learned the hard

    1147
    way that, behind the headline rate of corporation tax, there is a barrage of stealth taxes. Why is the share of national income taken in business taxes in this country now twice what it is in Germany or France?
    Mr. Smith: That is absolute nonsense, given all the charges that business in Germany and France has to pay. Instead of talking down this country and its achievements, Conservative Members should be praising the amount of European Union investment into this country. They should acknowledge that, thanks to the enterprise culture that the Government have fostered, inward investment into this country rose by 32 per cent. last year, and that the stock of inward investment in the United Kingdom has risen by 60 per cent. since the general election. Business has given the Labour Government a vote of confidence, in contrast with the economic failure of the previous Conservative Government.

    Confederation of British Industry
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: When he will next meet the CBI to discuss its reactions to his recent Budget and the assistance that it gives to the manufacturing sector. [116612]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I regularly meet with the Confederation of British Industry and other bodies. Our Budget measures for manufacturing include making permanent capital allowances, introducing a new research and development tax credit, introducing a regional venture capital investment fund of £1 billion, 100 per cent. capital allowances for new technology, the continuation of the lowest corporate tax rates for small businesses and large companies of any of the G7 countries and, of course, the maintenance of economic stability.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that businesses up and down the country are grateful not only for the Budget for business but for the three Budgets that he has introduced, which have been very good for our economy? Is he also aware that British business is responding by trying to reach higher levels of productivity, and is gradually succeeding? Businesses will also be very pleased at today's announcement that there will be no rise in interest rates, as they are still very concerned about the value of the pound against the euro.
    Mr. Brown: The Government's policy is for stability and steady growth. That is achieved by having monetary and fiscal stability. I will continue to support the Bank of England in the decisions that it makes.
    Manufacturing output is rising and productivity has risen by 5 per cent. Although I recognise the difficulties caused for manufacturing by the strength of the pound against the euro, the industry is not only responding but winning in many of our world markets.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the steps that have been taken to help industry, but will the Chancellor acknowledge that the textile industry in particular is under tremendous threat? Have there been any specific discussions with the Department of Trade and
    1148
    Industry and representatives of the textile industry to protect one of our basic industries, which has provided employment for our people for generations?
    Mr. Brown: I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the textile industry in Northern Ireland and the whole of mainland Britain. The measures that we have taken in the Budget, such as making permanent the 40 per cent. capital allowances, will be of benefit to textiles and other manufacturing industries. I know that that is what the CBI and other organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors, were pressing for, and it has been achieved under a Labour Government. I also know that for companies in the textile sector which are innovating and bringing forward new products and processes, the research and development tax credit—which will be worth £150 million and available even before profit is made from these inventions—will be of help. For companies which invest more, the regional venture capital investment funds will help Northern Ireland as well as mainland Britain.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while some sections of the textile industry are suffering, Scotland has very successful garment and fashion businesses? Does he also agree that although all the fiscal measures that he has introduced help the manufacturing sector, the manufacturing sector is also helped by the education and training that provides a skilled work force and a healthy community?
    Mr. Brown: Our policies for education, which are raising standards in schools, are essential for creating the modern skills base that industry needs. In addition, with the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce, we are launching a national enterprise campaign that will link businesses to schools. A thousand business ambassadors will help young people learn about commerce and business for the future.
    On the future of business, my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, whereas 1.2 million businesses were employing people when we came into power, there has been a 10 per cent. growth during our time in office. There are now 800,000 people in jobs who were not in jobs in 1997. We are continuing to pursue a policy of employment opportunity for all. Economic stability is our policy—we will not allow Britain to return to the boom and bust of the Tory years.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Chancellor take the CBI's advice on IR35? Four weeks ago, the Paymaster General criticised the Conservative party for standing up against the IR35 stealth tax on Britain's high-taxed, high-tech entrepreneurs, but has the Chancellor read the report in Tuesday's Evening Standard, headlined: "Tax climbdown on way as IT experts quit UK"? Will he confirm that he is under pressure from the e-commerce tsar, Mr. Allan, and from the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, to change his stance by easing up on IR35? It is not only the Conservative party that says that he is wrong—his own party thinks so too.
    Mr. Brown: No, we are not under pressure from either of the people mentioned by the hon. Gentleman,

    1149
    who clearly has no documentary evidence to prove what he says. It is interesting that the Conservatives say nothing about the basic rate of tax, or the 10p starting rate, or the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe, or the lowest small business tax rates. They are, however, very interested in tax avoidance. I have often thought over the past few days that the only tax credit that interests the Conservatives is a tax credit for Lord Ashcroft of Belize as he comes back to this country.
    We published our measures on IR35 last April, and they were followed by a discussion period and a consultation document. We made our decision last summer, and it was the right decision. Everyone should pay a fair rate of tax, and there should be no tax avoidance. It is about time the Opposition supported fair tax.

    Gulf War
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What has been the total sum paid from the Contingency Fund for the Gulf War operations. [116616]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): No advances have been made from the contingencies fund this year in respect of Gulf war operations. I can also confirm that there have been no claims during the current financial year on the Departmental expenditure limit reserve in respect of operations in the Gulf. Any on-going Gulf related expenditure is met from within the Ministry of Defence's budget.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has the Chief Secretary any figures for the annual cost of our Iraq commitment?
    Mr. Smith: I do. As a direct result of operations in the Gulf since the conflict began in 1990, the estimates were as follows: for 1999–2000, £30 million; for 1997–98, £16 million; and for 1996–97, £6 million. The total since 1990 is £580 million, and I shall give my hon. Friend the details for the other years.

    Amusement Industry
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If he will make a statement on measures in his Budget to boost seaside arcade businesses and support the amusement machine industry.[116617]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Budget introduced a package of reform for amusement machine licence duty, which will reduce tax revenue in the first year and be neutral in the longer term. It targets extra help on seaside arcades. A new exemption from duty for 10p small prize amusement machines has been particularly welcomed by those concerned about seaside tourism.
    Dr. Ladyman: Sober-suited business men seldom dance in the streets, but one or two in my constituency came close to doing so on Budget night because it is home to seaside arcades, suppliers of amusement machines and the world's two leading manufacturers, whose businesses were secured by what the Government did. Will my hon. Friend build on the good will thus created by ensuring that he meets at least annually with trade organisations for the industry so that they may discuss future opportunities for revenue raising and identify weaknesses in the industry so that we may continue to support it?
    Mr. Timms: I have, of course, met representatives of the industry, and should be happy to do so again in the run-up to future Budgets if representations are made to me. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that our changes have been particularly welcome at the seaside and to manufacturers of machines. The gain is for machines with non-cash prizes, which are popular at the seaside, rather than for cash-prize machines. As we often do, we listened to representations from the industry and acted on them. I am pleased to hear that people are dancing in the streets as a result.
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats are pleased with the concession for small prize machines—a proposal tabled during progress on last year's Finance Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and me. I am glad that the Government have accepted another Liberal Democrat idea, which will help British Legion branches, working men's clubs and even Conservative clubs. Given the number of pensioners who use such clubs and such machines, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor to improve pensioners' incomes rather than persisting with this month's measly 75p increase?
    Mr. Timms: The changes we are introducing are good news for machines in social clubs as well. I pay tribute to all my hon. Friends who have made representations on behalf of seaside tourism in particular.

Business of the House
12.30pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 APRIL—Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords].
Second Reading of the Television Licence (Disclosure of Information) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 APRIL—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill [Lords].
Motion on Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.
WEDNESDAY 12 APRII.—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Future of Sub Post Offices" followed by a debate on "Asylum Seekers". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 13 APRIL—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 18 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Postal Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL—Remaining stages of the Utilities Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 20 APRIL—Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment debate.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 12 April, there will be a debate on the White Paper on Food Safety in the European Union in European Standing Committee C.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the provisional business for the week after. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for thinning out the business for next week in response to my request last week. I am sure that this is a sensible response to the pressure from her Back Benchers for a less demanding parliamentary programme, although we shall still deal with the Second Reading of two Government Bills. To inform the debate next Tuesday on the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, will she place in the Library the relevant papers that she presented to the Modernisation Committee last year?
There is continued concern in the House about events in Zimbabwe. Might we expect a statement next week following the meeting of the General Affairs Council on Monday? Is there likely to be a statement next week on the reform of licensing hours? If there is, will Ministers respond to Madam Speaker's stern injunction yesterday not to trail the announcement, but to present it first to the House of Commons? Has the Leader of the House
1152
initiated the review of procedures in Whitehall that was asked for by you, Madam Speaker, in column 975 yesterday?
Finally, the House will have noticed that there is no time to debate the housing Green Paper published on Tuesday, the sporting strategy paper published yesterday, the intergovernmental conference White Paper published in February or the Royal Commission report on reform of the House of Lords. Is that not yet further evidence that the Government's programme is simply too large and is squeezing out the other functions of the Chamber—namely, debating matters of public interest?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks. I remind him that my hon. Friends who are looking for improvement in the management of this place are seeking, not a less demanding, but a better managed schedule in which the House conducts its business more efficiently. I will certainly place in the Library the memorandum to which he referred. I thought that that had already been done and I apologise if it has not. I had asked for it to be put in hand.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on Zimbabwe and the licensing laws next week. I will draw both requests to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends. He asked particularly that there should be no trailing of the licensing statement. As he will know, that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is meticulous in his responsibilities to the House. I am aware of yesterday's unfortunate event and I concur with your view, Madam Speaker, that it is unacceptable—as, clearly, does the Department concerned. We will, indeed, remind colleagues and their Departments about the responsibilities that we all have to this House.
On the notion that there is something unusual about the scale of the programme and the other debates that we are not taking now, all hon. Members are perfectly well aware that at this time of year we concentrate on getting the legislative programme under way. The notion that the programme is too large is being fed by some erroneous information that, inexplicably, someone gave to The Times. It suggests that last year only 18 per cent. of the Bills in the legislative programme were introduced. That is, of course, just the Bills that were introduced in the House of Commons, as last year 31 Bills in total were introduced. We have two Houses in this Parliament; all Governments use both Houses and that includes this one. So although this year's programme is, of course, substantial, as people would expect of a reforming Government, it is certainly not unusual.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Following the terrible tragedy that took place in Turkey last night, when two Leeds United supporters—Mr. Speight and Mr. Loftus—lost their lives, I am sure the whole House would want to express its condolences to the families on their very sad loss. In the light of that tragedy, could my right hon. Friend find time for a statement on the safety of British football supporters travelling abroad?
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and will want to offer our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives and to all who were bereaved. I realise that this raises more general anxieties about safety—whether for football

1153
supporters or for other travellers. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on that subject in the near future, but there will be Foreign Office questions next week, so my hon. Friend may find an opportunity to raise the matter then. We may also have more information by then.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I endorse the request for an early statement and a debate on the Government's intentions on the reform of the House of Lords? Did the Leader of the House read more leaks from the Government in today's papers, apparently trailing their intentions on the matter? Surely it is inexcusable that such leaks should continue while there has been no statement to the House explaining how long we shall have to put up with a wholly unsatisfactory appointments system for the other place.
Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, she gave me, and other Members who supported me, an explicit promise that there would be a statement and an opportunity to debate the issue of the farm summit? We were given a simple explanation as to the Government's intentions; that was placed in the Library. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he was outlining his proposals.
The right hon. Lady told me:
The discussions are under way and they will be properly reported to the House.
In response to a Conservative Member who supported me, she said that
it is also extremely important that Members have those properly reported to them and have an opportunity to pursue them, and that opportunity will come.—[Official Report, 30 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 498-506.]
There is a real crisis in agriculture. Many Members on both sides of the House are aware that the problems are not being properly addressed. The proposals are only a stopgap; they do not deal with the unsatisfactory situation in respect of the uncompetitive currency. When will we receive that statement?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the reports on the Lords to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not aware that anybody has trailed or leaked anything. I am perfectly well aware that all sorts of people are all over the papers continually giving their opinions; that is not the same as the leaking of Government policy.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the farm summit. Yes, of course I said that the matter would be properly reported to the House. I believe that it was—through the vehicle of a written answer. I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I have said before, proper reporting to the House—as Madam Speaker has repeatedly made clear—includes written parliamentary answers. The timing of the farm summit was not such that it was helpful to the House—or indeed possible—to have an oral statement. There are, and will be, opportunities for the matter to be questioned.
As for the hon. Gentleman's final remarks, I understand that the NFU has written to all members welcoming the package.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there any chance of a statement next week on the difficulty faced by our forces, and indeed, those of other western countries,
1154
in Kosovo, where a situation is developing in which not only are Serbs being ethnically cleansed, but Albanians who do not support the KFA and have fallen out with the KLA are also being cleansed? This is rather an urgent matter.
Mrs. Beckett: The whole House is aware of the difficult situation in Kosovo; no one nurtures any illusions as to the fact that it will continue to be difficult for a considerable period. There are great tensions in the region. However, there will be Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, when, no doubt, such matters can be aired.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House provide time next week for a debate on the need to standardise Government language, so that, for example, the word "inflation" means the same for pensioners, whose pensions go up by 1.1 per cent. this month, for taxpayers, who find that their tax allowances are going up by 1.2 per cent., and for motorists, who find that the inflation increase on the cost of fuel is 3.4 per cent? Could we couple with that a debate about the use of the word "next", particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In March, he described next April as April 2000 and, today in answer to questions, he described next April as April 2001. He cannot have been correct both times.
Mrs. Beckett: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that there is some difference in the way that the indices are measured and that the change has been brought about by this Government. It has not; we have not changed the measures that we inherited from the previous Government. If he does not like the way the pensioners index is measured, where has he been for the past 18 years?
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will recall that, in the 1980s, a Greater London councillor, Mr. David Wetzel, was responsible for introducing a "fares fair" policy in London whereby all pensioners travelled free on local transport. Other people have tried to claim the credit, but the policy was introduced by Mr. David Wetzel. Can my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on such matters, because we should extend that system nationally? People all over the country look very enviously on what has happened in London.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. However, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Government have just introduced a national scheme that means that pensioners will be entitled to half fares across the country. That is something that the Conservative party conspicuously failed to do.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Leader of the House not accept that the position with regard to the other place is becoming intolerable? Time and time again, Parliament is demeaned by the appointments that are being made to the House of Lords. Surely it is time the Government introduced proper proposals that could be properly and urgently debated, so that, at the very least, we would know where everyone stands before the next election. The electorate would then

1155
be able to make their judgment about what is going to happen to their Parliament and how far the upper House, in particular, can be accountable to them as the electorate. The matter is urgent; it cannot be put off. Will the right hon. Lady give us a proper answer?
Mrs. Beckett: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman feeling that it is intolerable that, in the House of Lords, the Conservative party, which was so overwhelmingly rejected at the last election, still has a majority of 34 peers over the Labour party. I share his view that that is intolerable. The Government are seeking to address the issue, but obviously everything cannot be done in one fell swoop.
Mr. Jim Cousins: May I return my right hon. Friend to the topic of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, which I raised with her last week? She then gave us an indication that the debate on setting the Committee up would be held on Monday in what is normally considered prime time. She has just announced that the matter will not be debated until after the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill and after likely votes at 10.30 on Tuesday evening. Will she assure me that that change did not come about because of pressure from the official Opposition, who have so little regard for the concerns of people in the English regions? Will she also assure me that the change in timing does not in any way reflect a lack of priority that the Government attach to the issue?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall not reveal too much about the discussions that go on through the usual channels, but he will have heard the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) thank me for taking off some of the business that was scheduled for Monday, and my hon. Friend is right to say that this issue was part of that business. In that sense, there clearly was a wish not to take on Monday all the business that had been scheduled for that day. I understand, and I regret, that it has not been possible to put the debate on earlier than its new scheduled time, but I hope that the proposal will find as great a welcome across the House as it does with my hon. Friend—otherwise those who call for a voice specifically for Members representing English seats could be accused of gross hypocrisy.
Mr. Graham Brady: In his role as chairman of the Government's better regulation taskforce, Lord Haskins has made it clear that schools throughout the country are wallowing in a sea of red tape and that the bureaucracy that is being piled on them by the Government is standing in the way of improving standards. Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about what the Government intend to do to stop the endless piling on of red tape and allow schools to manage themselves with proper freedom as to how they get on with their job?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course everyone is very conscious of the importance of giving schools freedom to do their job in the right context. The notion that what the Government
1156
have done bears no relationship to standards is not borne out by the facts, because standards have improved sharply, particularly in maths and, as a result of the literacy hour, in English. My recollection of Lord Haskins' remarks is perhaps a little fuller than the hon. Gentleman's. I recollect Lord Haskins saying that under the previous Government schools were smothered in red tape; he is not happy that this Government have reduced it enough. We shall continue to work at that.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable confusion and a little anger among some of my constituents about the winter fuel payments for males aged 60 to 65? They have been told that they will get the payment, but nothing else. To make matters worse, when one person phoned the Department of Social Security office to ask when he would get the payment, the reply was, "You tell us." People need to be reassured that the payment will be made and backdated, and they need to know when they will get it. I would be most grateful if my right hon. Friend could arrange for a statement to be made to the House as soon as possible to answer those questions and reassure people.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks at the moment, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I hope that the information can speedily be provided to him and his constituents. I fear that the person whom his constituent contacted has something to learn about taking a customer-friendly approach.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Since the responses of the Leader of the House on the House of Lords are either that it is all very difficult, or that the Government are busy with their reforming Bills, does she agree that it would have been much better for us all if the Government had decided, before they embarked on this venture, what they were eventually going to do, even if they could not have provided the whole of the legislation in a single tranche?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we had that debate in spades in discussions on the House of Lords Bill. As for the notion that we should have made all the decisions before we even embarked on the debate, I know that he is aware, and I am certainly conscious of the fact, that trying to do it that way led to the House of Lords remaining in existence for a further 100 years.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is still the old-fashioned view that if we cannot have a House of Lords based totally on patronage, and if we cannot have one based on an election because that would reflect on the standing of the House of Commons, we should go back to the original Labour party proposal to get rid of the House of Lords, which has now been brought into total disrepute by the actions of the Tory leader in nominating Lord Belize of Sleaze? I have a suggestion: 60,000 miners are queuing up to get their chests X-rayed so as to get their payments, so we should use the House of Lords to settle the dispute for those miners with lung problems.
Mrs. Beckett: I was slightly surprised that it was a Conservative Member today who raised appointments to

1157
the Lords. I understand and respect the case that my hon. Friend puts for a unicameral system. If we decide not to accept that case, there is then a wholly different discussion about what the nature of the second Chamber should be. Much as I share, and I hope the whole House does—I know that all Labour Members do—the concern that my hon. Friend expressed about people in the mining community, and particularly about the suffering that many have endured for many years, I fear that I cannot find time to debate whether they should instead constitute a second Chamber.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the Government's intentions for the management of the fast reactor fuels at Dounreay? My many constituents employed there have been kept in the dark about the Government's intentions for years. They will not have been reassured by a written question from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), due to be answered today, which refers to options. Will the Government arrange for a statement on which they can be questioned?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a statement specifically on the issues relating to Dounreay, although I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern on behalf of his constituents. However, I can undertake to draw those concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Mike Wood: My right hon. Friend will realise that this month sees the third anniversary of the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Will she arrange for an urgent statement about its progress so far, not least on the adequacy or otherwise of its funding?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the commission has made a case for additional staff and that the Home Secretary continues to give sympathetic consideration to that case, having already given the commission more resources at the beginning of last year. I believe that my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the not too distant future.
Mr. Stephen Day: The right hon. Lady may be aware that Lord Whitty wrote to me recently apologising for the delay in introducing regulations that would allow my constituents at Chester's Croft in Cheadle Hulme, and others similarly affected in the country, to claim the compensation that residents of permanent homes can claim. The residents of Chester's Croft have been classified as living in mobile homes, even though the homes have been there for 40 years. Lord Whitty said that the regulations would be introduced shortly. Will the right hon. Lady endeavour to find out when precisely "shortly" will be, since it is some weeks since Lord Whitty wrote to apologise?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman off the cuff the information that he seeks. I can undertake to contact my noble Friend and ask him to deal as speedily as he can with the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 312?
[That this House notes that international currency speculation currently stands at about $1.5 trillion a day and that the vast majority of this is unrelated to trade in real goods and services; further notes that such enormous speculative flows substantially undermine the powers of national governments and regional blocs; believes that a small levy on such speculation, known as the Tobin Tax after the name of the Nobel Laureate who originated the concept, could both help to dampen down the scale and scope of speculation and raise substantial revenues, raising as much as $250 billion each year for good causes such as development and environmental protection; recognises that such levy would have to be universal or as near to that as possible and contain safeguards to minimise and eliminate tax evasion; notes that the Tobin Tax has the backing of the Canadian Parliament, the Finnish Government and campaign groups such as War on Want; and urges the Government to discuss the concept with its partners in international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, G8 and the European Union with a view to drawing up an internationally co-ordinated and feasible tax regime for currency speculation.]
It has been signed by 100 hon. Members of all parties. Given the horrors that consume the world, especially in Kosovo, Mozambique, Ethiopia and elsewhere, is there not a case for the international community to consider a tax on international currency speculation, which is massive throughout the world and which destabilises economies? May we have a debate on the Tobin tax—the question is: Tobin or not Tobin?
Mrs. Beckett: I feel tempted to let that remark stand alone. Of course the Government accept the importance of trying to promote a more stable international system for handling capital. We have been working hard to that end. Consideration has been given to the ideas that lie behind the proposal for the Tobin tax, but I fear that the Government are not convinced that it is the best way forward at present.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the right hon. Lady consider an early debate on the provision of banking services in rural areas? Would that not give us an opportunity to consider how Barclays can possibly justify closing 172 branches and depriving towns such as Dawlish in my constituency of proper banking services? Would it not also give us the opportunity to hear from the Government at first hand what steps they have taken to defend people in rural areas from the practices of Barclays—apart from the announcement by an Under-Secretary of a ludicrous one-man boycott?
Mrs. Beckett: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituents and I understand the concern that he expresses, which I know is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I cannot remember great activity on the part of the party that he represents during the years when lots of other things were closing in rural areas, including many banks. One of the reasons why people are so concerned about what Barclays is doing is that this is a further step along the chain. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have set up mechanisms to scrutinise how the banks operate and

1159
whether they do so efficiently, effectively and with regard to concerns raised by others in society. The Government will continue to keep up pressure on the matter.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will have seen reports in the press this week that people as young as 15 are addicted to heroin. In Barnsley, because of the cheapness of a wrap of heroin, the drugs action team considers that heroin is becoming a drug of first use. Will she find time for an early debate on the drugs scene, so that we can consider whether the Government's strategy is in need of adjustment?
Mrs. Beckett: I have seen the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. The whole House will find them disturbing. He knows that the Government continue to keep under review the issues raised by that difficult subject. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the House in the near future, but he might like to explore the possibilities of Westminster Hall.
Mr. James Gray: A moment ago, the right hon. Lady was airily dismissive of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) for a debate about Lord Haskins' report on the overload on head teachers. Perhaps she will listen more carefully to Mr. Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, who states in a report this morning that 93 per cent. of head teachers believe that they are seriously overloaded as a result of the bureaucracy and unnecessary tasks loaded on them by the Government. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her airy dismissal of my hon. Friend's request for a debate, and call for one next week?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not dismiss the request from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), airily or otherwise. I merely pointed out that his recollection was a little partial. Of course the Government recognise that it is important to ease the burden of stuff that goes from the centre to schools, although schools will no doubt welcome the post that they get in the near future, when they receive their cheque as a result of the Budget.
Mr. John Cummings: May I press my right hon. Friend on the matter of banking services? She knows that Judas Iscariot was rewarded with 30 pieces of silver for the betrayal of one man. The chief executive of Barclays is to be rewarded with 30 million pieces of silver for the betrayal of hundreds of thousands of longstanding, loyal customers. In view of the hardship that will be inflicted on my constituents in the village of Easington Colliery, will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate to be held in Government time and in the Chamber on the future of banking services throughout the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. However, I fear that it is not likely that we will be able to find Government time for a debate in the House in the near future on that subject. It is Department of Trade and Industry questions on 11 May, and my hon. Friend might look to that and to other opportunities to raise the matter in the Chamber.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House say whether the country is to be blessed again
1160
this year with another edition of that—perhaps not so popular—glossy brochure known as the annual report, for those who are so dim that they do not realise how brilliant the Government are?
If an annual report is to be published, will the Government show, under the countryside section, how many farmers have gone under in the past 12 months, and the average income of farmers; how many post offices have closed in the past 12 months, and how many are expected to close when the social security payments are changed; how much extra petrol tax people living in rural areas have paid over the past 12 months; and how many rural schools have closed over the past 12 months? Perhaps the report could include the statement from the Minister of State at the Department for Education and Employment, who this week closed one of my rural schools, saying:
Closure seems unlikely to impact greatly on the community, partly because of the already low numbers at the school, and the availability of alternative community facilities.
Does not that clearly demonstrate that the Government do not understand the countryside?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not been thinking much about the annual report, but I expect there will be one, as it is supposed to be annual. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's proposal for one to the attention of those responsible. He and the House may find it slightly surprising that there were substantial sales to the public of that document last year. I am speaking purely from memory, but I think that about 20,000 copies were sold. That may say something about a lack of entertaining reading material, but I can only give the hon. Gentleman the facts.
The hon. Gentleman has given me a useful idea, which I shall certainly pass on to those responsible for the content of the document. It should have an annex, comparing the record of this Government on all the items that he cited with that of the previous Government.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Hon. Members who have a particular interest in housing have waited patiently for three years for a major debate on the subject in the Chamber. This week, the first comprehensive review of housing policy for 23 years was published. I congratulate the Government on that excellent document. Can we please have a major debate in the Chamber before the Government introduce any housing Bills?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I share his welcome for the Green Paper. I take account of his observations about a debate in the Chamber, but I fear that such a debate is unlikely in the near future. I understand his anxiety for no legislative proposals of substance to be introduced before the matter has been more fully debated. I am confident that the Green Paper will allow a forum for such a debate throughout the country.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Modernisation Committee differs from other Select Committees in that it can call any number of hon. Members as expert witnesses. Can we inform its deliberations through a debate in the Chamber about our working hours before we reach any conclusions? Those

1161
of us who sit on the very Back Benches suspect that any change in the arrangements might deny us the ability to scrutinise Bills.
On programme motions, the right hon. Lady will recall that those agreed through the usual channels for the Scotland Bill ensured that many clauses and amendments that were important to Back Benchers were not scrutinised.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, the Modernisation Committee meets to discuss such matters. There is no question of the arrangements for this House being changed as a result of that Committee's deliberations without their being aired and given an opportunity for comment in the House. That is always the case. The arrangements are a House, not a party matter.
To go back as far as the Jopling report, those of us who discussed programming Bills and the scale of discussion agreed to such procedures because they are the best way of trying to ensure that Back-Bench Members scrutinise the provisions of most concern, rather than simply talking them out by accident or through guillotine motions.
Mr. Denis MacShane: May we have an early debate on the applicability of the Register of Members' Interests? If my right hon. Friend reads column 116 of Hansard on 27 March, she will find the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) opining at great length on petrol prices. If she looks at page 116 of the Register of Members' Interests, she will read that the shadow Chancellor is on the payroll of Kerr McGee, the world's third biggest petrol exploration company. The right hon. Gentleman did not register that interest before the debate.
After last week's scandal of the appointment of Baron Belize of Sleaze to the House of Lords because of all the money that he gave the Tory party, is it not clear that sleaze is the soft underbelly of the shadow Cabinet, and at the heart of the Conservative party?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend draws attention to the Register of Members' Interests and the information contained therein. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future.
I am conscious that it is important to keep the register as up to date as possible and that the point of the register is to ensure that information is not hidden. Hon. Members should make it clear in the House when they have interests that are relevant to the debate. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) did that.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have a debate on the Government's shameful attitude to the future of grammar schools? Such a debate would give the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the chance to explain why he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), have formally abandoned any pretence of neutrality on the subject and now publicly campaign for the destruction of some of our finest state schools in the borough of Trafford.
Mrs. Beckett: I think that I know perhaps a little more about the fine schools in the borough of Trafford than
1162
does the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing shameful about the Government's attitude in making it plain that we want high standards in all our schools, which should be the aspiration of Members in every part of the House, and believe that decisions on those matters should be in the hands of parents. That used to be Conservative party policy, but I notice that it is no longer
Mr. Andrew Love: May I press my right hon. Friend for a debate on the housing Green Paper? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that it represents the first comprehensive statement for 23 years, but I believe that it provides the first real opportunity for Parliament to put right 23 years of neglect and prejudice in housing policy. This is a matter of great concern to my constituents and to people across the Greater London region, and it is important that Parliament's views be taken into account during the consultation, which ends in July.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He has a long track record of campaigning on and pursuing those issues, not only as a Member of Parliament. I can only say that I do not anticipate being able to find time for a debate in the near future. As he will know, at this time of year the emphasis is usually on the progress of Government legislation, but he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) have made an important point and I undertake to bear it in mind.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: According to independent and objective House of Commons Library information, typical working families are £13 a week worse off this week, despite the Chancellor's denials and obfuscation. Bearing in mind her responsibilities to the House rather than her membership of the Government, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on whether the Government dispute the independence and objectivity of the information that the Library provides?
Mrs. Beckett: I have long experience of the impartiality of the information provided by the House of Commons Library and of the partiality with which Members read and present it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is that a confession?
Mrs. Beckett: No, it is a statement of fact. Members on both sides of the House use information to suit their purposes, which is no doubt why people talk of lies, damned lies and statistics. Having announced the Second Reading of the Finance Bill for the week after next, I do not feel the need to provide a further opportunity for those issues to be aired.
Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will have seen early-day motion 595, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), on the United States plan to develop a national missile defence system:
[That this House notes that the United States plans to develop a National Missile Defence system and that President Clinton is due to make a decision about further developments this summer; is concerned that the United

1163
States has asked Russia to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is widely considered to be the cornerstone of international arms control; believes that the deployment of a NMD system could destabilise international relations and result in further vertical and horizontal proliferation; is worried that Britain will collaborate with the United States on NMD through Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire; and calls on the Government to initiate a debate on the advisability of Britain's involvement in these potential and destabilising developments.]
The plan could be globally destabilising and it has been made by an extremely aggressive world power that tends to bomb any enemy that it does not happen to like back into the stone age at every given opportunity. People inside and outside the House are also concerned because the Government may be going along with the system in some way, particularly as RAF Fylingdales and Menwith Hill in Yorkshire may be involved. Can we have a debate or at least a statement by a Defence Minister?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government certainly share my hon. Friend's view that the anti-ballistic missile treaty and broader strategic stability should be preserved, and continue to work to that end. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the specific issue that he raises in the near future, especially as we are to have a defence debate in the next couple of weeks. However, I am sure that he has taken note of and comfort from the fact that his words have been heard by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, amendments to Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule I, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 2, Clauses 14 to 25, Schedule 3 Clauses 26 and 27, Schedule 4, Clause 28, new Schedules.—[Mr. Touhig.]

  Armed Forces Discipline Bill [Lords]
    Clause 5

      RELEASE FROM CUSTODY AFTER CHARGE OR DURING PROCEEDINGS
      1.9 pm
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 24, line 23, leave out from "imprisonment" to "or" in line 24.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 24, line 48, leave out from "imprisonment" to "or" in line 1 on page 25.
      No. 15, in page 25, line 26, leave out from "imprisonment" to end of line.
      Mr. Blunt: I am somewhat concerned by the remark made in business questions by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about the very Back Benches and wonder whether I am sitting in an unfortunate place. However, I hope that the distinction is not meaningful.
      I should first declare my interest as the Bill and these amendments in particular apply to me as a member of the Regular Army Reserve of officers.
      So far, the way in which the Bill has been considered has done no credit to the Government and their supporters. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, only one substantive contribution was made by a Labour Back Bencher, and that was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, which had conducted an inquiry into the Bill.
      Mr. Graham Brady: That is clearly a record that Labour Back Benchers wish to maintain—not a single one is present now.
      Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was about to say. Not one is here.
      Hon. Members: There is one.
      Mr. John Bercow: But she is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary.
      Mr. Blunt: I am, of course, delighted that the Minister is supported by her parliamentary private secretary.
      Mr. Robert Key: A Liberal Democrat is present, and we are very glad to see him.

      1165
      I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because he has given me an opportunity to apologise to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), whose name I took in vain in Committee when I said that he was present very rarely. The hon. Gentleman had not told me or the Committee beforehand that, unfortunately, he would be in hospital. If he had told us, we would probably have been gentler with him.
      Mr. Blunt: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said.
      So far, the Government have accepted none of the amendments that my hon. Friends and I tabled in Committee. Most of those amendments were designed to improve the Bill, and to reduce the substantial burden that it will impose on the armed forces. The problem with the Bill is that it is riddled with peacetime assumptions about—
      Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendments stand in his name. He is now embarking on a Third Reading speech, whereas he should be dealing with his amendments in detail.
      Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I am about to deal with the amendments.
      The amendments are concerned with the Bill's effect on both peacetime operations and full operations in time of war. They attempt to improve the Bill, and to allow it to cover all the circumstances in which it will have to operate. I am thinking particularly of circumstances in which people are involved in wartime operations. In such extreme circumstances, the last thing the authorities want to do is detain people. I envisage circumstances in which people have been, in effect, remanded: they are not in custody, but they have a duty to turn up to face trial when required to do so by the authority concerned—in this instance, the judicial officer or the judge advocate.
      The problem with the generality of the Bill—on which my amendments focus—is that it makes a number of assumptions about how the military operates. It assumes that we permanently deploy our military in times of peace, or in operations short of war. As Brigadier Ritchie made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee, the last thing the authorities want to do is detain people in the extreme circumstances of wartime, because it consumes resources; but they will want to be pretty sure that those concerned will turn up to face trial. The simple purpose of my amendments is to ensure that, if people fail to turn up, the court martial system can impose appropriate sentences.
      1.15 pm
      Under the Bill, the sentence is limited to a maximum of two years' imprisonment, which is for going absent without leave, but, in the most extreme circumstances, the accused may be told that he will not be detained because of lack of resources. If he then fails to turn up, it can be an offence equivalent to desertion; if it is an offence equivalent to desertion in the face of the enemy, it is clearly a most serious offence. The simple purpose of the amendments is to remove the two-year limit, so that, effectively, the court can produce a punishment that meets the seriousness of the situation. That would mean that the Bill would suit all circumstances during operations of the greatest seriousness and in time of peace.
      1166
      I tabled the amendments in Committee. I am grateful that you have selected them again, Madam Speaker, because in Committee the Minister seriously misunderstood their effect. He said:
      The purpose of the amendment, which would reduce the punishment that a court martial can impose on an accused for failure to appear at a hearing, is unclear.
      That is not the case—the punishment is increased as the amendments would remove the limit.
      When the Minister was considering whether to accept or reject the amendments in Committee, he clearly misunderstood their effect, or was misdirected by his officials. I hope that tabling them on Report will give him the opportunity to reconsider his position.
      There was a second serious misunderstanding by the Minister: he misunderstood the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Where clause 5(2)(b) applies, the accused,
      if he is subject to military law only by virtue of section 131 or 205(1)(ea), (eb), (g) or (h) of this Act—
      the Army Act 1955—
      may be required to comply.
      The Minister clearly had been directed only to what was meant by section 131, not to what was meant by section 205. In his guidance to the Committee, he said:
      The clause will not apply to personnel who are still serving; it will apply only to those who have left service but who are subject to a charge from a previous period of service.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 2000; c. 100-01.]
      That is not the case.
      Section 205 of the Army Act and the equivalent sections in the other Acts make it clear that the measure applies to every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, when in full-time service or when undertaking any training or duties. Subsection (1)(eb)—which applies to me—applies to every officer of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, when in full-time service, when undertaking any training or duty or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve. Similar subsections apply to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the three services.
      I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reconsider the facts. On his advice as to how the law stood, I withdrew the amendments and did not press them in Committee. I am sure that that is why you have given me the opportunity to raise the matter again on Report, Madam Speaker.
      These simple amendments improve the Bill and enable it to operate in all circumstances, in both peace and war, which was what we were aiming for in Committee. I regret that, in arguing for other amendments in Committee, we failed to convince the Minister. There were rather more Labour Members supporting him in Committee than are present on Report.
      Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister has listened to my argument, and that he will be able to reconsider his position and break his duck in amending the Bill.
      Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) for tabling this group of amendments, which gives the Minister an opportunity to clarify the position. In Committee, we were almost wholly constructive in our opposition. Although we had our

      1167
      moments—a frisson—now and then, those were an attempt to clarify an immensely complicated system of law. People do not really understand the complexity of the three services Acts, each of which has slightly different interpretations and presents slightly different challenges in being applied to the legal system.
      My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the difficulty of imposing any law on the battlefield—or in theatre in anticipation of battle, or, increasingly, in a peace-enforcing or peacekeeping role—and to the fact that we really have to be very precise about what we are asking our commanding officers and courts martial or other courts to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in clarifying the situation, which certainly was not clear in Committee.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am sure that the House would expect me to comment on two recent incidents in Northern Ireland before I reply to the debate.
      This morning, there was an explosion at Ebrington barracks, Londonderry. This further attack on the security forces is reprehensible. Fortunately, no one was injured. It is yet another crude and cynical attempt by a small number of people to disrupt the peace process by the use of violence. We cannot let them succeed. Investigations into the incident are continuing, and I am not at liberty to comment on it any further.
      I was also very sad to learn of the non-terrorist-related deaths of two soldiers and the injury of one other while carrying out operations on Lough Foyle. The circumstances of that tragic incident will be the subject of a thorough investigation. Meanwhile, our thoughts and deepest sympathy are with their family and friends.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
      Mr. Key: May I associate the Opposition with the Minister's remarks? The attack highlights the danger in which our soldiers—all Her Majesty's forces—are placed while we take for granted the peace in which we live. Many of us have visited our forces in Northern Ireland—indeed, in Londonderry—and I know the dangers that they face daily, even when we think it is peaceful.
      May I also associate the Opposition with the sympathy expressed by the Minister for the soldiers who have died or been injured on Lough Foyle and for their families? It is a tragic part of service life that they are prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
      Dr. Moonie: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
      Mr. Campbell: I am grateful. May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy that have just been made by the official Opposition spokesman? On the first incident, although I do not expect the Government to comment in detail on matters of security, would the House be entitled to assume that, in the event of an incident of the type that the Minister has described, there would
      1168
      thereafter be an immediate review of the necessary precautions to assure the safety of armed forces personnel serving in Northern Ireland?
      Dr. Moonie: Yes. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is the case.
      Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I had not intended to intervene, but as the Minister mentioned the first incident, and following the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on behalf of the Opposition—
      Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to have a debate on the matter, as we are in the middle of consideration of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. Proper respect has been shown in relation to the Minister's statement by spokesmen on both sides of the House. I call Dr. Moonie to deal with the amendments.
      Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I was about to ask the Minister a question about the consequences of today's incident, and whether he would urge his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, at the earliest opportunity, to make it absolutely clear who were the perpetrators of the incident—the Provisional IRA or a splinter group. The answer has a huge bearing on the armed forces and on the way we may have to deal with the matter in Northern Ireland.
      Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point will have been noted by Ministers. However, as I said, in the middle of our consideration, I am not prepared to take statements on the matter from both sides of the House. Due respect has been shown by hon. Members of the two main Opposition parties.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
      Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same matter?
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Yes.
      Madam Speaker: In that case there is no point of order.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
      Madam Speaker: Order. Dr. Moonie will proceed. We are considering the amendments.
      Dr. Moonie: Perhaps it would help the House if I explained in some detail the purpose of the clause. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I do not think that I shall be able to accept his amendments.
      The offence created by new section 75J(3) of the Army Act 1955, which will be inserted by clause 5, applies only to persons who are not ordinarily subject to service law other than for the purposes of trying the offence with which they are charged. The first category caught by the new offence is those being tried under the service discipline Acts for an offence committed while they were

      1169
      subject to service law. A simple example of people in that category is ex-regular soldiers. Section 131 of the Army Act 1955 and of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 51 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 provide that such former service personnel remain subject to service law, but only for the purpose of arrest, custody and trial, although they have ceased to be subject to it generally.
      The second category is described in the four paragraphs of section 205(1) of the Army Act 1955, which is sufficient illustration of the three Acts. The category includes every officer of the Territorial Army who is a special member when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not. I stress the word "special", because those officers constitute a specific category of Territorial Army officer and are to be distinguished from ordinary Territorial Army officers, who are subject to service law at all times and do not fall within the groups that we are discussing. I shall elaborate in a moment on the various definitions, such as permanent or full-time service if hon. Members wish—or perhaps I shall just do it anyway.
      The others covered by the offence are: every officer of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not, or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve; every warrant officer, non-commissioned officer and man of the Army Reserve when in permanent service, in full-time service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not, or when serving on the permanent staff of the Army Reserve; and every warrant officer, non-commissioned officer and man of the Territorial Army when in permanent service, in full-time service, called out for home defence service or undertaking any training or duty, whether in pursuance of an obligation or not, or when serving on the permanent staff of the Territorial Army.
      Permanent service is when someone is called out under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Full-time service is when they enter a commitment to work full-time for the services. Undertaking any training or duty refers to the minimum number of days that they are obliged to undertake by virtue of their membership of a reserve force. They can volunteer for additional duties if they wish. Persons on the permanent staff are known as non-regular permanent staff. They are similar to reserves who have signed up for full-time service, but the terms and conditions differ slightly.
      The distinction between different types of volunteer reserve officer arises from the creation of a new category of reserve—those who enter employee agreements under part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. They are referred to as special members. The 1996 Act enables civilians to work in support jobs that would require their services in operations. Persons taking up those jobs agree as an employment term that the post includes a liability for call-out and training. They become a special member of the reserve force.
      Because the call-out liability is related to the job and the people concerned are not volunteer reservists in the ordinary sense, they are not subject to service law at all times as an ordinary reserve officer would be. We are satisfied that regular soldiers or serving commissioned officers who are released from custody pending trial can be given a lawful order by their commanding officer to
      1170
      attend a future hearing. A subsequent failure to attend could result in such service personnel being charged with a service offence.
      However, individuals who fall outside that specific but large category of personnel are not necessarily subject to the commanding officer's command and control at all times prior to the trial. Accordingly, in relation to these other individuals, it is necessary for the Bill to create an offence for non-attendance at a hearing after being released from pre-trial custody. In our view, without having specific provision for these two categories of personnel, the Bill will be defective in that such personnel could never be sanctioned for not attending any subsequent hearing. I think that that deals with the second point made by the hon. Member for Reigate about the categories of person that are involved.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Blunt: Perhaps the Minister could illustrate the position by reference to me. I am on the regular Army Reserve of officers. If I am called out by Her Majesty's Government on permanent service, presumably section 205(1)(eb) would refer to me. I presume that if I were on permanent service, I would be called out only if something extremely serious had happened, such as war. Let us say that I was remanded for trial for an offence in action, which would probably be an extremely serious offence in those circumstances. If I failed to show subsequently—de facto, I had deserted—I would be caught by clause 5. Would I be caught as well under the Army Act? I do not know. If not, presumably I should be. If my offence was serious enough to be the equivalent of desertion, surely a tariff should be available to the court for my non—appearance at the subsequent hearing. That means the removal of the time limit, which is what my amendments would do.
      Dr. Moonie rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that that will not set the standard for the length of interventions this afternoon.
      Dr. Moonie: I am not sure which section would apply to the hon. Gentleman. If he had listened carefully to what I said, he would understand his position in that context. I do not intend to repeat myself. It would depend on the circumstances in which the services were required.
      I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the detailed explanation that I gave in Committee of the need for the clause because of the persons to whom the penal provisions within it apply. I accept that that was a complicated explanation, as it was this afternoon. The distinctions between groups of persons subject to service law can be quite subtle. The clause is aimed at those cases where an individual has been released from custody prior to trial and then fails to attend trial.
      I recall that the hon. Gentleman was concerned in Committee that the maximum sentence of two years did not take into account the seriousness of absconding in extreme operational circumstances. However, he must remember that the penal provisions of the clause would not apply to service personnel. They are subject to the service discipline Acts at all times and could be charged with a far more serious offence if appropriate. The penal

      1171
      provisions will apply where they are no longer subject to the service discipline Acts, but are being dealt with for an offence that they are alleged to have committed while they were.
      The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asserted in Committee that a person may well decide that a maximum penalty of only two years is not enough of a deterrent when faced with the possibility of being convicted for a very serious offence, and that he thus may abscond. We should remember that a sentence must be proportionate to the actual offence. One possible offence would be failing to attend court. The sentence must be approached separately from any sentence that is imposed for the offence that is the subject of the proceedings. If the accused is convicted of a serious offence, he will receive appropriate punishment for that offence.
      To allow courts to impose long terms of imprisonment when the accused might be acquitted of the original offence would be out of proportion. The sentence is not and should not be linked to the substantive offence, no matter how serious that may be. I might add that the more serious the original offence is, the less likely it is that bail would be granted in the first place.
      If a service man fails to attend, he is likely to be charged with being absent without leave, or with failure to attend a duty. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of two years. It should also be remembered that the Crown court cannot impose a sentence of more than 12 months for failure to attend trial, regardless of the gravity of the original offence.
      I have given the amendments careful consideration, even though I am not prepared to accept them. However, I think that the Bill gets the matter just about right. The penalty should reflect the offence as it stands. It is appropriate and reasonably in line with civil practice, and I see no reason to change it.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: First, I wish to apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who took part in the Committee proceedings on this Bill but who cannot be here today because, long before the business was allocated, he had arranged to bring some 200 of his young constituents to visit the House of Commons. He is therefore occupied elsewhere during this debate.
      I hope also that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who introduced the amendment, will forgive me a moment of levity. When he said that he might be called out in an emergency, I leaned over to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and said that, if that happened, gas masks and ration books would be issued at the same time. However, the Member for Reigate used himself as an interesting illustration of his interpretation of this part of the Bill.
      It is always a risk to let the lawyers in, but I believe that the deletions proposed in the amendment would cause clause 4(5) to read:
      A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction by court-martial to any less punishment provided by this Act.
      I hope that I am not guilty of misreading the proposal, but that would be a rather infelicitous use of language to try to achieve the amendment's apparent objective.
      1172
      The Minister's explanation of the possible punishment available under subsection (5) seems entirely reasonable. A penalty of up to two years' imprisonment for a failure to attend would be pretty high up the tariff scale, in anyone's view. One could argue that it was nearly draconian, given the powers available to the Crown court.
      I understand the amendment's objective, but it and the others in the group would leave infelicitous language in the Bill if they were accepted. In addition, an unlimited punishment would be available for a failure to attend, and that would be going too far. For that reason, if the amendment were pressed to a vote, I could not recommend that Liberal Democrat Members support it.
      Mr. Blunt: I do not believe that the amendment would have the effect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. If the amendment were accepted, clause 5(4) would read:
      A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction by court-martial to imprisonment or any less punishment provided by this Act.
      The Minister gave the game away when he said that people charged with a serious offence would not be granted bail. That goes to the heart of why this and other parts of the Bill are defective. They do not take into account all the extreme circumstances faced by the armed forces. The simple fact is that, in extreme circumstances, people will be released on bail or from custody.
      Let us take the example of a person suspected of murdering a colleague. If the case against him could not be established and the circumstances were very extreme—such as those experienced by a unit cut off behind enemy lines—it might not be possible to spare two guys to detain him and lock him up. If the person appeared to be willing to continue to fight for his unit, the decision might be made simply to allow him to do so. The Bill is supposed to cater for all circumstances, whether for current operations or those carried out in wartime. We do not want two sets of disciplinary procedures.
      The amendment would simply remove the tariff. I agree with the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that the tariff implies that it is almost inconceivable that there will be such circumstances. It is almost inconceivable, but the Bill must cope with all the circumstances that the military might face.
      The Minister has said that he will not accept the amendment, even after the opportunity that he has had for reflection since the Bill was considered in Committee. I will not be pressing the amendment to a Division. However, the Ministry of Defence will be considering legislation on these matters in future, with the next quinquennial Bill and the opportunity to bring the service discipline Acts together.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Fried considered circumstances in which a service man may be charged with a relatively minor offence while evidence is being gathered for a more serious offence with which to charge him? Given that he may abscond before the hearing, and assuming that almost enough evidence has been gathered for him to be charged with the serious offence, it might be appropriate to remand him in prison pending the more serious charge being brought against him.
      Mr. Blunt: I confess that I had not considered that possibility. However, it illustrates another reason for the Bill to be flexible enough to cope with every circumstance.

      1173
      This is a minor point. The situation is unlikely to arise because we will not, I hope, be at war in the next few years when such circumstances might occur. We will have plenty of opportunity to return to these issues, particularly if the Government make progress on bringing the discipline Acts together in a tri-service discipline Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      JUDICIAL OFFICERS
      Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 29, line 24, at end insert—
      or—
      (c) they are a serving Officer in the Territorial Army or the Royal Auxiliary Air Force who also hold a current practising certificate, issued by the Bar Council, Law Society or Institute of Legal Executives, to practice as a Barrister, Solicitor or Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and who have at least two years post qualified experience'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 29, line 37, at end insert—
      'or—
      (c) they are a serving Officer in the Royal Naval Reserve who also hold a current practising certificate, issued by The Bar Council, Law Society or Institute of Legal Executives, to practice as a Barrister, Solicitor or Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives and who have at least two years post qualified experience'.
      Mr. Key: The amendments would allow reservists and other members of the Territorial Army to hold the post of judicial officer, either while on exercise with their respective service or when serving as a full-time reservist. May I say how nice it is to welcome the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) who served on the Committee that considered the Bill? I look forward to listening to their contributions this afternoon.
      The Bill has many practical difficulties, and these we have made clear to the Government, right through the Committee stage. Unfortunately, the Government seem determined to drive the Bill through without listening to the Committee or the House. We will, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, continue to try and improve what is clearly a flawed measure. The least that we can do for the armed forces is to try and make this wretched Bill work.
      The amendments would widen the pool of those qualified to serve as judicial officers. It is clear that there will be insufficient barristers within the armed forces to cope with the proposed changes. Not only will barristers have to continue to prosecute and defend cases, they will now have to exercise their role as judicial officers.
      The Territorial Army already has a legal corps. However, the naval reserve does not. Furthermore, the Army and the Air Force recruit civilian lawyers to join their legal corps, but the Royal Navy recruits unqualified personnel from the supply and secretariat branch, and trains them as barristers. The Army and the Air Force can easily step up recruitment, and have done so, but, as legal training is a lengthy process, the Navy is not in the same
      1174
      position. It is therefore conceivable that some convictions may fail because the Royal Navy cannot put the accused before a judicial officer in time.
      1.45 pm
      The House will be unsurprised to be reminded that reserve forces provide essential back-up for the regular forces. The reserves contain some qualified lawyers, many of whom may practice criminal law, or even human rights law. They are likely to have a good knowledge of the special nature of service life, backed by expert legal knowledge, and they would make a fine addition to the legal services available to the armed forces.
      Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend must be aware of the Inns of Court and City Yeomanry, which is particularly well qualified in this regard.
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes my point for me.
      The Government savaged the Territorial Army last year, cutting numbers by 18,000 men. The then Secretary of State, Lord Robertson, said that by doing so, he aimed to make the TA more usable and relevant—a memorable phrase. As the former Secretary of State was well known for his sense of humour, people may have thought that he was joking. He was not. The Government have shown themselves to be no friend of the reserves, but have had no hesitation on calling on reserve forces when they need them, as they did last year in Kosovo.
      Even after the huge cuts of 1999, the Government continue to salami-slice the budget of what is left of the Territorial Army. No one would deny that the reserves play a hugely important role. It would be an opportunity wasted if we denied appropriately qualified reservists the chance to play their part in the service disciplinary process. I ask the Minister to accept a sensible, logical amendment.
      I hope that the Minister will not say that the matter can be dealt with in next year's Armed Forces Bill. My golly, that will be a Christmas tree of a Bill, given all we have heard in Committee about what will be added to it. A great deal is missing from the Armed Forces Discipline Bill. I hope that the Minister will break the habit of a lifetime by conceding that our proposal is sensible and accepting it.
      Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened to everything that he said with great care. There was little else to do in Committee, unfortunately. Listening is better than falling asleep, if marginally so. I have promised to consider matters in future, but I certainly have not promised to include them in the quinquennial review Bill. Considering matters for inclusion is quite different from actually including them, but I will of course give points serious consideration where I have said that I will do so.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would allow the judge advocate general or the chief naval judge advocate to appoint as judicial officers volunteer reserve officers who have specified practice certificates or qualifications with a minimum of two years post-qualification experience. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) intends to provide more flexibility in relation to those who may be appointed judicial officers, and that he is trying to be helpful. I fear, however, that it would be a flexibility too far.

      1175
      Two points are at issue: whether we want to use reserve officers as judicial officers, and the type of qualification and level of experience that we wish them to have. Clause 7 provides for the appointment as judicial officers of only qualified lawyers, including lawyers who are volunteer reserve officers. The amendments, however, would add legal executives to those eligible for appointment. For all their fine qualities and the breadth of their responsibilities in the civilian world, such individuals are not lawyers, and are not, in our view, qualified to serve in a judicial capacity. That assessment is based on the judgment that we made when we drafted the Bill, and is reflected in clause 7. By the same token we do not see a case for varying the qualification period for different categories of judicial officer. It would make nonsense of the legislation if we required lawyers to have at least five years' post-qualification experience before being appointed as judicial officers, but allowed lawyers and legal executives who are volunteer reserve officers to perform that function with considerably less experience.
      The issue of length of experience was debated at great length in Committee. I stated then and must do so again that we believe that five years' experience demonstrates a reasonable level of familiarity with the law, so is the minimum period that should apply. I have given the matter serious consideration. I am sorry, but in this case I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am particularly concerned with the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve. Is the Minister aware that in the London division of the RNR a large proportion of serving officers are qualified and well practised solicitors and barristers? I understand his point about those with lesser qualifications, but does it not make sense to make use of the excellent naval and legal experience of those people in the RNR?
      Dr. Moonie: If such people are in the Royal Naval Reserve, we will use them. All we are specifying is that they must have five years' experience. For the points I have made that is not an unreasonable stipulation to make.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: Clearly, the role of the judicial officer is important, with considerable responsibilities to be discharged. Such responsibilities are best discharged by those who have some maturity and some direct experience of trial or court-martial procedure. For example, it is not possible to become a sheriff—a middle ranking judge—in Scotland with less than 10 years in practice, whether as an advocate—the Scottish equivalent to a barrister—or a solicitor. So it is right to set a minimum level of experience if people are to be invited to carry out extremely important responsibilities which bear on the rights and freedoms of individual citizens or, in this case, of individual members of the armed forces. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister said in relation to the five-year qualification period.
      When the Minister responded to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), however, he said that there were two questions: whether we wanted to use reserve officers and of the experience of those who might fall into that category. He answered the second question, but I did not
      1176
      understand him to answer the first: whether the purposes of the Bill could be served by the use of reserve officers. He came back to it obliquely at the end of his remarks. Perhaps he could make it clearer whether he is satisfied that the existing arrangements without the amendment allow for the utilisation of the very people who were mentioned a moment ago in an intervention as reserve officers in all three services with the requisite legal experience to take part in proceedings of the kind that we are considering and to fulfil the responsibilities of judicial officer. To cut out that group of people would be to waste a valuable resource which could be of great assistance in achieving the objectives of the Bill.
      Mr. Gray: I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly in regard to the Territorial Army. I wish to qualify his question to the Minister in one particular way. These people need not be officers. The Inns of Court and City Yeomanry and the Honourable Artillery Company have banisters of great qualifications who are of other ranks.
      Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right to pull me up on that matter. One of the curious features of the Territorial Army is that people serve in it as a private or corporal who outside occupy positions which, on the face of it, would be equivalent to rather higher ranks if their outside position were reflected in their rank in the TA. So although I am with the Minister on the question of experience, I am by no means convinced that he has dealt with the issue in so far as it relates to the availability of valuable resources in the shape of reserve officers qualified to fulfil the functions outlined in the Bill.
      Mr. Blunt: I have listened to the arguments, and have some concerns both about the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and about the proposition advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
      Shortly, the Minister will correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Dr. Moonie indicated assent.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister will say that, if members of the Territorial Army meet the qualification of having been members of the Bar for five years, they would be suitable as judicial officers. That would meet my concern about the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife.
      As I understand it, the amendment would mean that members of the TA and other reserve forces, who have some experience of service matters, would have to go over a lower hurdle in respect of the legal experience required to serve as judicial officers. My concern is that those TA officers would be undertaking, with less legal experience, a judicial duty that the Government believe to be necessary because of the Hood judgment at the European Court of Human Rights. That case led to these provisions in the Bill, because, under the European convention on human rights, commanding officers are not considered to be independent and thus not capable of taking decisions on custody and remand into custody. That is why the first part of the Bill was introduced.
      I am concerned that, instead of the simple five-year tariff for lawyers to exercise the function of judicial officer that applies to members of the regular Army and

      1177
      the other regular forces—which I believe to be unnecessary—members of the TA would be in the peculiar position of only needing to have held a judicial qualification for two years in order to sit in judgment on members of the regular Army. We need to avoid that situation. It could create legitimate resentment among members of the regular forces, because someone with a TA commission, possibly with limited reserve experience, might be put in judgment over members of the regular forces without the legal tariff of five years core experience that the Government have decided is necessary.
      As an ex-regular, I should be worried if a judicial officer, with only limited territorial or reserve experience and limited legal experience, sat in judgment over members of the regular Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
      Mr. Sayeed: I understand the point my hon. Friend makes about two years and five years. However, is not it true that those in the reserve forces would be full-time lawyers? In the Navy, many of those who become legally qualified are only part-time lawyers. They come from the supply and secretariat branch and qualify as lawyers, but they do jobs other than legal ones in different postings. Although they may be time-qualified, their quantum of legal work is rather less.
      Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is right. However, we are considering a point about lawyers who will sit in judgment on members of the regular forces. In my view, it is right for commanding officers and the chain of command to take decisions on custody and on remand into custody. There was no problem about that until that one case was brought under the European convention of human rights. If the armed forces were not subject to the convention, because, 49 years ago, we had had the wisdom and foresight to negotiate a reservation for them, we should not be having to introduce provisions about decisions on custody being made by someone so obviously independent as a lawyer of five years' standing rather than allowing the CO and the chain of command to make the decision in the first place. We are in this position, and the Government have yet seriously to examine the routes that would get us out of it. As we are clearly caught by the Hood judgment, this clause is regrettably necessary.
      2 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to officers in the Royal Navy; some are lawyers and some are not. If, in their capacity as lawyers, they detained sailors in custody on judicial hearings, they would be acting at least as serving regular officers of the Royal Navy. The problem with the amendment is that people with limited Territorial Army and legal experience could sit in judgment on issues of custody that used to be considered by commanding officers who were respected and who operated under a system that was respected. If that happened, it could cause resentment in the Army and the regular forces, so it should be avoided.
      Mr. Key: I suspect that had we been talking about medical matters, the term "skill fade" would have been heard in the debate. What my hon. Friend the Member for
      1178
      Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said was important and it justifies the amendments. We are talking about people who practice law and soldiering and we have to consider what happens if there is crossover between the two roles.
      I listened carefully to the Minister. In an almost throwaway line, he confirmed that the Government would use members of the Territorial Army if they were qualified in his terms. If I am wrong, perhaps he would like to clarify the matter.
      Dr. Moonie: I will clarify the matter, even though I thought that I had made it perfectly clear, as I think the record will show.
      Volunteer reserve officers who meet the qualifications in paragraphs (a) of the new sections will be eligible for appointment any way without need for modification to the Bill.
      Mr. Key: That is exactly what I thought the Minister had said, and it gives us some satisfaction. We had hoped, however, that we could widen the pool of expertise by varying the qualifications necessary.
      We shall have to return to the issue. We are all aware that we are being invited to stumble down a path and, no doubt, the Bill will have to be repaired and patched up. It is remarkable that not a single Government amendment has been made in Committee or on Report, and only a handful were made in the other place.
      Mr. Blunt: A point has just occurred to me. The issue turns on the definition of independence in the European convention. Are the Territorial Army officers who are lawyers not as independent as those lawyers who are not Territorial Army officers? If regular Army officers who are lawyers assume the role of judicial officers, will they meet the test of independence? Has the Minister considered that point?
      Mr. Key: I cannot speak for the Minister. However, I suspect, in terms of compliance with the European convention, he would say that regular and Territorial Army officers are all part of the chain of command and that that is the issue. That is my understanding.
      I shall not detain the House any longer. We have been around the course on the amendments and I am sorry that the Minister has not conceded on them. It has been worth while probing on this issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      CUSTODY RULES
      Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 30, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
      '(3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 31, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
      '(3) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      Mr. Key: The purpose of the amendments is clear: they would provide for closer parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State's ability to make rules regulating proceedings preliminary to, and at, a custody hearing. The rules apply to the arrangements to set up videolinks.
      In this remarkable clause there is a long list of items for which the Secretary of State can make provision in making rules. That list includes items that we might expect: arrangements preliminary to the proceedings; the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate; the admissibility of evidence; procuring the attendance of witnesses; the immunities and privileges of witnesses; the administration of oaths and so on.
      At the end of that list, subsection (3) says:
      Rules under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
      We are being asked to agree to those statutory instruments being made under the negative procedure, whereas they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We realised in Committee that the Minister has set up arrangements that are uncertain—and, frankly, if I were facing a court-martial or summary proceedings, I would want to be sure about the processes to which I was to be subject.
      In Committee, I challenged the Minister to demonstrate a videolink in action. That was a reasonable request, given that many of the Bill's provisions relate to the use of such links on active service. I asked for a demonstration of a videolink between the House of Commons and Pristina in Kosovo, because we had repeatedly been told that such links were in regular, indeed daily, use and that there was no problem with that.
      I made my request on a Tuesday and suggested that by the time we met on the Thursday, the Minister might have been able to set up a videolink to allay the Committee's fears. However, the Minister did not turn up with the goods, and his reason was that
      the equipment we used for the trial was hired and is no longer in our possession. When one thinks about that it is quite natural.
      I have to disagree; I do not think that it is at all natural. Ministers have been telling both Houses that the technology exists, that it is in frequent use and that it is widely available.
      On that occasion, the Minister rounded off his comments by saying:
      We will enter a proper system of purchasing once we have decided exactly what we want to use.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 March 2000; c. 187.]
      I remind the Minister that we have a deadline of 2 October, when the Bill will come into force if it is passed today. It would be very smart procurement indeed to get all the kit necessary by then.
      Far from being a tried and tested system, it seems clear that we are dealing with an untried and untested system. Even worse, the whole basis of our armed forces discipline system on operations will henceforth be dependent on those untested videolinks.
      1180
      It is also notable that the Minister's comments contrast rather drastically with those of the Minister for Defence Procurement in the other place. On 16 December, she said:
      The services are fully capable of exploiting successive advances in technology, which they already deploy with great success. Video technology is in day-to-day use. It was in constant use throughout the recent crisis in Kosovo. The armed services see no reason why that technology should not be deployed equally successfully in other operational environments and for purposes such as those envisaged in the Bill.
      Clause 8 includes the introduction of the use of live television links as a means of fulfilling the new custody rules, particularly when the logistical circumstances may be difficult. The clause was slightly amended by the Government in Committee in the other place to broaden the use of the technology to all custody hearings, and not only those being brought before a judicial officer. The amendments in the other place also clarified the fact that live television links and visual transmissions could be undertaken via other media, such as the internet.
      With regard to the practicalities of using video equipment, the Minister for Defence Procurement said in the other place:
      I hope to offer the Committee some reassurance on that point. I shall refer to the Army in particular, since it is likely to have the greatest number of personnel in remote locations. The Army would seek to use video link technology where operational or training circumstances mean that a face-to-face hearing is not possible within the required time-frame—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1999: Vol. 608, c. 351.]
      On Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that the MOD was
      currently trialling video equipment to ensure that the quality of the equipment is suitable for the purpose for which it will be used. The equipment currently used operates at 28 kilobytes. The equipment is capable of showing a wide-angle picture of an entire room or of zooming in on an accused in fine detail, just as it is used in court hearings, especially those involving children. Although we can use Inmarsat—the international maritime satellite—commercial links, there is no question that commercial television satellites would be used, because we have access to other means of communication.—[Official Report, 17 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1201.]
      The Defence Committee was also intrigued to be told about video conferencing. The director of personnel services for the Army explained to the Committee that video conferencing happened already. Apparently, there are daily video conferences with Pristina. It was unfortunate that we were not allowed to see that. The director had spoken to a judge advocate on a video conference facility as part of a trial. The judge advocate will have a portable system at home with him, and it will be possible to dial him up almost literally at any time. There will also be static video conferencing suites and portable systems that can be taken home, so a duty judicial officer will be available who can be wired up to pretty well anywhere in a world because, as the director said:
      IT-wise now, wherever our soldiers go, we have the IT system.
      In Standing Committee the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was a little more bullish. She said:
      Generally speaking, video conferencing is up and running, but it needs to be trialled for the purposes of the Bill.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 March 2000; c. 171.]

      1181
      I found that surprising because on 1 February I received an answer to a parliamentary question to the Parliamentary Secretary. I asked her if she would
      list the companies that supply, provided and service secure videolink technology for use in British courts; and what arrangements are in place to prevent the interception of transmissions by third parties.
      The Minister replied:
      Videolink technology is used occasionally in the Crown Court to enable witnesses to give evidence from abroad. The installation is arranged locally by the party whose witness is giving evidence in this way. No information is held centrally on the suppliers used or the arrangements put in place to prevent interception. A pilot is currently in place to provide a videolink between Strangeways prison and the Crown Court in Manchester.—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c.545W.]
      So on 1 February that was the extent of the Government's experience.
      Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department took part in the Standing Committee and that when Ministers have assisted in taking a Bill through its Committee stage, it is a courtesy to the House that they should be present in the Chamber on Report to assist the House with their evidence and continue to give their support?
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend and I both served as Ministers in the previous Government and I wholly agree with him, but then we are not dealing with a normal Government. We saw from the lack of contributions from the Back Benches in Committee that we are dealing with a steamroller rather than a Government.
      Between 1 February and when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke to our Committee, the Government's experience had changed. The Minister noted that the Judge Advocate General was satisfied that the equipment worked and further explained that the video equipment was portable. She said that the equipment was the size of a suitcase. It sounds to me a bit like "Mission Impossible". While it was clearly acceptable for the Judge Advocate General to examine the technology in action, it was not possible for the Members of the House charged with scrutinising the Bill to see it working.
      In their eagerness to get the Bill on the statute book, the Government seem to have got ahead of themselves. They set the Bill's provisions with blasé faith that videolinks would work in the prescribed circumstances.
      2.15 pm
      Our inquiries have shown that video conferencing for the purposes of the Bill is still at the trialling stage. The equipment has not been proven, yet it remains at the heart of the Bill's provisions. In Committee, we also raised concerns about the security of videolinks. Once again, the Government failed to give adequate reassurance. We were told that interception was possible. I have made the point that in a modern television war, in which visual propaganda can prove an immensely effective weapon, as has been so ably demonstrated by the Iraqis and then the Serbs, one dreads to think what would happen if a disciplinary visual feed were intercepted. The Minister said that the narrow beam width would prevent interception by casual hacking and eavesdropping. I wonder how many intelligence surveillance operatives engage in casual hacking activity.
      1182
      My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) also raised the important point that such transmissions were not only vulnerable to interception but left an electronic signature that could betray an unit's presence and location—a signature that could provide the aiming point for a guided weapon. The lack of firm and convincing answers is the reason why we are seeking to amend the Bill so that the rules governing the use of the technology are subject to the affirmative procedure.
      The House needs a second look at this issue. The Government cannot gamble with our armed forces' operational effectiveness in this way. We hope that they will not seek to override the legitimate right of Parliament to see that only sound and thoroughly considered legislation emerges from this place. It is a matter of pure practicality. We believe that simply to trust the Secretary of State to make rules is against the interests not only of Her Majesty's forces but of natural justice. It is against the interests of natural justice that we are asking people to be tried in front of a video camera system that is unreliable, can be intercepted, and for which the technology does not yet exist. Yet, by 2 October, the Government plan to have the Bill up and running and in operation on a daily basis. We are very doubtful about that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction.
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have some sympathy with the amendment, but not because I know much about videolinks and such matters. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path, although he made a number of trenchant points. As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would require the rules in the clause to be the subject of affirmative rather than negative resolution. The distinction between the two is often a fine one, but I have always understood that under the affirmative resolution procedure, the House of Commons is asked to engage more intimately in the process so as to pass judgment on the matters that are contained in subordinate legislation.
      Clause 8(2) at the top of page 30 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, says that rules may be made in relation to a number of matters. One can draw a distinction between rules made for essentially procedural issues such as
      arrangements preliminary to the proceedings; the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate;…the administration of oaths;…the appointment of persons to discharge administrative functions under the rules"
      and other elements of the criteria that fall into a rather different category, namely:
      the admissibility of evidence;…the immunities and privileges of witnesses.
      The admissibility of evidence may go right to the very heart of the proceedings and whether the proceedings will be held to have been concluded in a way that is favourable or adverse to the person who is the subject of them. Immunity for witnesses in certain circumstances means that witnesses may be available to give evidence in the knowledge that they can give evidence that might on the face of it incriminate them, but which cannot be used on subsequent occasion to institute proceedings against that person. Those are issues of fundamental importance but of a different character to the procedural arrangements that the rest of the subsection appears to embrace. That is why there is some justification for the view that, if rules

      1183
      are to be made in relation to the admissibility of evidence, the immunity of witnesses and the consequences of that immunity for subsequent proceedings, the House of Commons ought to pass judgment on those rules by way of affirmative resolution rather than accepting them by way of negative resolution.
      These are matters more of legal importance than of military significance, but the purpose of the Bill is to put in place proper legal structures affecting the incorporation into the law both of Scotland and of England and Wales of the provisions of the European convention on human rights.
      Admissibility of evidence and the immunity of witnesses are precisely the kind of issues that human rights lawyers would regard as being embraced by that convention. That is why the Minister should consider giving effect to the amendment, at least in so far as it relates to subsections (2)(c) and (2)(e), and why I have some sympathy with the amendment and the purpose that lies behind it.
      Mr. Viggers: The debate is taking place only because of the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires the European convention on human rights to be incorporated in our law by 2 October 2000. It is crucial that any legislation that we enact be compliant with the convention. Frequently in Committee the Minister answered points put to him by saying that it was essential that we should ensure that the law is compliant—a word that we heard many times—with the European convention.
      Mr. Blunt: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we heard many times that it was necessary to be compliant, we were never given the benefit of the legal advice upon which the Government had come to their conclusions—conclusions which the Opposition would almost certainly dispute?
      Mr. Viggers: Indeed, and when the Minister was cross-examined as to whether he could confirm that we would be compliant, his line throughout was that we must, if necessary, err on the side of compliance; we must not take risks with compliance; we had found ourselves not to be compliant in the past—if in doubt, so to speak, surrender. That motto is not, I think, a cap badge of any known Army unit.
      We need to ensure that the detailed provisions are compliant. The details listed are quite wide. Rules will be made in relation to

      (a) arrangements preliminary to the proceedings;

      (b) the representation of the person to whom the proceedings relate;

      (c) the admissibility of evidence;

      (d) procuring the attendance of witnesses;

      (e) the immunities and privileges of witnesses;

      (f) the administration of oaths;

      (g) circumstances in which a review…may be carried out without a hearing;

      and so on.
      1184
      We are trying to ensure that we are compliant with article 6 of the European convention. The principal statement in that article is that
      everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
      The subsidiary points include, under (d), a person's right
      to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.
      How can we be absolutely certain that the European convention will be complied with, under the rules proposed by the Government? How can we be sure that the European convention will be satisfied if the attendance of a witness is by way of video conferencing? That is a crucial point. What does "attendance" mean? Does it mean attendance in a room physically with the accused, or in attendance by a video recording?
      If we do not know the answer to that, and if attendance does not have the usual meaning, but means visibility through a videolink, and if the European convention does not accept that attendance means presence through a videolink, we will not have complied with the convention and we will have wasted our time dealing with the clause.
      Therefore it is important, as we move into the unknown territory of trial through the medium of video conferencing, that there should be every opportunity for the House, the nation and the armed forces to have the expert advice and comment of lawyers conversant specifically with the law of the new media.
      The Minister who gave specific, expert evidence on the subject to the Committee was the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. It was helpful that she was present and able to give us authoritative advice. It is unfortunate that, typically of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary is not present to advise the House as the Bill moves through Report and Third Reading. It would have been helpful to have her with us.
      However, we can demand and should expect as of right that the Government accept that the provision should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, if it is to pass into law; that the House should have a further opportunity to discuss the clauses and the rules in the light of expert advice which can be given outside the House; and that we are given another bite at the cherry on the rules. I therefore support my hon. Friend's amendment.
      Mr. Martin Bell: I try to make it a rather seditious principle in the House to speak only about what I know about, which is why my speeches are so few and so short. I can claim to know something about videolinks, because I lived and worked by them for many years.
      It was an honour to serve on the Standing Committee scrutinising the Bill. I must thank the Liberal Democrats who, I believe, were suffering from overstretch at the time and gave me one of their seats on the Committee. I found it an intersting experience, and in some ways rather dismaying.
      I appreciate what was said in the House yesterday: we do, indeed, have a Government who listen—a Government who listen to themselves. I was struck by the quiescence of those on the Benches behind the Ministers who were speaking. I would have hoped that in a democracy there would be more of a dialogue both

      1185
      between Government members and between the Opposition and the Government. We could have achieved a lot more if we had been more collaborative.
      There are issues that give rise to serious concern. We are not simply constructing a law that will conform to the convention. We are trying to protect the rights of serving men and women. As the Secretary of State knows, there have been some flagrant and disturbing cases in recent years. We have tried to address those.
      On videolinks, we are dealing with custody hearings. We are speaking of the life of a serving man or woman—freedom or the denial of it for some time to come. What is important is not only the words spoken, but the demeanour. That is vital, both face to face and on the end of a videolink.
      Demeanour and the perception of it can be affected not only by words, but by the lighting, the sound, the quality of the videolink, and the camera angle. I will not say that the camera lies, but it certainly shades the truth. Professionals know that if they want to give a good impression of someone, they shoot him from a certain angle, and if they want to undermine someone, they shoot him from another angle.
      Serious issues are involved. As a sole independent, I lack the numbers necessary to move an amendment, but if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) chose to hold his ground on this, I should be delighted to vote with him.
      Mr. Sayeed: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who made some important points arising from his own experience.
      I shall deal with two points—first, the use of the negative procedure on statutory instruments. I disapprove of secondary legislation. One of the problems is that it is unamendable. As we get more practice in the use of video links, we will want to change the legislation in subtle ways. It is therefore important that when we come to make those changes, as we will have to do, subtle amendments can be made.
      The Government may say that if it becomes clear during a debate that a statutory instrument is wrong, they will rewrite it and present it to the House again. However, since they have been power I know of no occasion on which they have reconsidered and amended a statutory instrument after a debate in Committee. They may say that they will do that, but I doubt it. A statutory instrument cannot be amended by negative procedure. That is a fundamental problem with the system, and with the Government's offer of presenting a statutory instrument through the negative procedure as a method of making changes in future.
      2.30 pm
      My second point is about video links. The hon. Member for Tatton made some good points. It is also important to consider the views of Kingston TLI, the specialist company which handles armed forces television. The company pointed out that even a land-based system costs £300,000 to £350,000. Rental and personnel costs must also be taken into account. However, leaving aside the costs, we must consider the practicalities of establishing a video link.
      The Government talk about the way in which the Army would set up such a link, and I appreciate that the Army has more personnel. However, it is easier to establish a
      1186
      video link on land than at sea. It is easier because, for example, there tends to be a better supply of electricity and electronic silence is not such a problem.
      Baroness Symons said:
      Video tele-conferencing is also used in Kosovo and was used regularly in Bosnia.—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 December 1999; Vol. 608, c. 353].
      She said it was easy to use. However, it is important to know the views of the experts, in this case Kingston TLI. Its comments support what the hon. Member for Tatton said. According to the company, to produce broadcast quality results, data have to be transmitted at a rate of 8 megabits per second. Inmarsat is capable of only 128 kilobits per second, which will support only low quality conferencing. While it has the advantage of being bidirectional, it gives a poor and jerky image.
      What does that mean? I shall take ships as an example because I know a little about them. In a ship on normal operations, much of the band width may be used. There will therefore not be much left for other, less immediately important matters. The ship may not have the requisite equipment, or if it does, it may be sending a video signal of a person who will be in danger of losing his liberty in a fashion that may prejudice his chances.
      The Bill includes a 48-hour rule on custody. Ships run electronically silent for long periods to evade an enemy. The Minister may claim that there would be no video conferencing if the ship was in conflict and we could wait until it was in safer waters. The 48-hour rule means that that does not wash. It may be necessary to secure a person in the way in which a commanding officer was entitled to do before the introduction of the Bill. However, he will not be able to do that because, under the 48-hour rule, a person who can be contacted only by video link has to authorise the detention.
      As I have said, ships run electronically silent for long periods. In such circumstances, it will not be possible for the ship to broadcast because it would thus reveal its position. A commanding officer will not necessarily be able to get permission to secure a person during the 48-hour period. I wonder whether the Minister has considered that.
      Dr. Moonie: If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read the Committee proceedings, he would realise that we have already dealt with that point at great length.
      Mr. Sayeed: I have looked at the Committee proceedings—
      Dr. Moonie: I said "read".
      Mr. Sayeed: I also read them. Having looked at and read them, I do not believe that the Minister has dealt with the point adequately. We need to ensure that, if the equipment is on board a ship and it needs to be used, the time limit is sufficient to allow those in the Royal Navy to use the provisions.
      The Government's proposals on the use of statutory instruments and the rules for video links do not allow for subtle amendments to take account of experience. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.
      Mr. Blunt: I do not want to detain the House, but I wish to register my support for the amendment because

      1187
      of the enormous difficulty of phrasing and creating the statutory instrument. The Parliamentary Secretary has now disappeared; she replied to the debate when the subject was considered in Committee. She said that she hoped that it would be drafted by May, but that it would be introduced as soon as possible. We were told that the limiting factor was the availability of parliamentary counsel. However, I believe that it is the sheer difficulty of producing the statutory instrument in a manner that will withstand legal challenge.
      I look forward to the Minister's comments. I hope that he will be able to tell us when the statutory instrument will be introduced, even in draft. The Committee should have been able to examine it, but the Government failed to produce it. The least we can expect is that the affirmative rather than negative procedure will be u sed—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I ask whoever has the electronic device to silence it or leave the Chamber.
      Mr. Blunt: I want to register my support for my hon. Friend. I perceive many difficulties with the measure; therefore the rules should be subject to affirmative rather than negative procedure.
      Dr. Moonie: We covered video conferencing at great length in Committee and on Second Reading. Despite the ingenuity of tying the matter to the technical amendment that we are considering, I do not intend to spend much time covering it again.
      Use of video links in operational and commercial circumstances is now an everyday occurrence. The Ministry of Defence regularly uses video conferencing to communicate with our forces and allies all over the world. We do not depend on commercial satellite for video links.
      The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) again used the misprint in Hansard on Second Reading. The correct figure is 128 kilobits per second, not 28. I must correct that or others will believe that I do not know what I am talking about; in this case, I do. I know a lot more than Opposition comments suggest that Conservative Members know.
      The judge advocate general and his staff were involved in a trial of video conferencing equipment for custody hearings in February. They are satisfied that the equipment is suitable. The judge advocate general said:
      I am not satisfied that the equipment I have seen demonstrated is adequate for hearings to be conducted in a fair and safe manner.
      We are not discussing trial. We are improving the rights of people who can be put in custody without review by a judicial officer and the same standards as might apply in a trial do not apply here. As the judge advocate general has said, the quality available is perfectly adequate to allow a judicial officer to make a fair—
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, although I did not mean to stop him mid-sentence. I was not a member of the Committee, but I took an interest on Second Reading and have attempted to read significant portions of the Committee proceedings. Practicability comes to mind.
      1188
      In a battle or semi-battle situation, what would be the practicability of using video equipment? Has that been discussed with the judge advocate general? Can he summarise how he expects it to be used? Does the qualification "as soon as practicable", which one finds in various passages, provide a let-out or not?
      Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that it does. That is why those words have been used. Again, we covered the matter at length in Committee. Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not had the advantage of reading those debates, but the point is to recognise that there are operational situations in which, with the best will in the world, we cannot always apply the conditions that we should like to. He is quite right: I should not have stopped mid-sentence because I have forgotten where I was and am unable to complete my remark.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course the Minister knows exactly what happened in Committee. If he gives me a day and a Hansard column number to refer to I shall be most grateful.
      Dr. Moonie: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's gratitude will have to wait, because I have no idea of the day on which we discussed this matter. However, I assure him that I gave the Committee reassurance on the flexibility that we intend to build in to cover the operational situations he has described.
      To deal with the substance of the amendment, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department conveyed my regret that the rules to be made under the clause were not ready for publication. However, I undertook to have the instruments available in May and my officials are diligently working to that timetable. I understand hon. Members' desire to see the rules in draft. A great deal of detail will go into them and I accept that their content is vital to the efficient working of the system, but I do not believe that subjecting them to the affirmative procedure is the answer.
      A key purpose of rules made under secondary legislation is flexibility. That flexibility is essential in this case to ensure that we are able to adapt the rules to reflect changes in circumstances, procedures and best practice. The amendment would mean that any, even minor, changes in our rules over the years ahead would have to be subject to further debate in both Houses. I would think a lot more of Conservative Members' opposition to the negative procedure if they had expressed it a bit more often when they were in power. I do not recall any of the Conservative Members sitting over there voicing such opposition at any time while I have been a Member of the House, other than in opposition. The negative procedure is convenient and well established in practice.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I must correct the Minister. I frequently lobbied for reform of that procedure and shortly before the end of the previous Parliament put my name to a measure that proposed an initiative for such reform, although I cannot quote the date of the Hansard concerned. I agree that reform is needed

      1189
      urgently, but may I reverse the point? What are the new Labour Government doing to improve the farce of the House's treatment of secondary legislation?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can excuse the Minister from answering that wider question.
      Dr. Moonie: Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, it is interesting that his disloyalty in government has been rewarded with a post in opposition. [Interruption.] I would very properly be ruled out of order if I mentioned the single currency.
      Mr. Sayeed: The Minister's comment about reform was also directed at me. I assure him that if he goes back far enough—probably to 1986 or 1987—he will find that I was one of those who supported my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) when he said that he strongly deprecated all secondary legislation.
      2.45 pm
      Dr. Moonie: I disagree completely. Secondary legislation is very useful, particularly when the negative procedure is involved, and can be dealt with reasonably quickly.
      This matter has been examined by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of the House of Lords, which gave its usual careful consideration to the rule-making powers sought by the Bill, including those under the clause. Its report accepts the proposed use of the negative procedure and states that the Committee has
      considered carefully whether it is appropriate that a power wide enough to regulate the admissibility of evidence and the immunities of witnesses should not be subject to affirmative procedure. The rules will be part of a framework consisting of existing legislation and subordinate legislation made under it. The whole will have to be compatible with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Against that background the Committee can accept that it is appropriate that the rules should be subject to negative procedure …
      Because of that, and for the other reasons that I have outlined, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.
      Mr. Key: My goodness, is not Parliament a menace when it gets between the Executive and its clients? I am sorry that the Minister is being so scratchy, but his scratchiness makes the point that we have won the argument hands down, and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends. He failed to address the point about video links, both now and in Committee, and the Government have failed to make the case. We are discussing the affirmative procedure as a principle. It is no good banging on about what might or might not have happened under previous Governments—he is in charge now—and if he thinks that reform is a good idea, and if he thought that it was a good idea then, why does not he do something about it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggests?
      There is another important point here. The Minister quotes the judge advocate general and says that he is satisfied, but he does not happen to be a Member of the House of Commons who has to decide what is in the interests of justice for our armed forces. We have to take that decision and we are not satisfied. That is what the
      1190
      Minister has to realise. The matter is not a simple one of him stitching something up with some important part of the Ministry of Defence without consulting the House.
      Having won the argument hands down and in view of the time pressure that we face with protected business to follow, it would not be responsible to take a quarter of an hour out of these brief proceedings to put the amendment to the vote, knowing that some 300 absent Members of the House will flood in to support the Government.
      Mr. Blunt: The number of absent members are not 300 but about 400.
      Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. It is significant that the other 400 are waiting outside, even though only six or seven Labour Members are present.
      We had better put the Minister on probation and we shall be watching extremely carefully. No amendments have been made, which is most peculiar.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: We were focusing on the practicability of the use of video links and the delay that might be permitted in battlefield situation. My hon. Friend was present throughout in Committee. Was he satisfied with the Minister's answers? In a sentence can he tell us what he said about flexibility and practicability? What's my hon. Friend's opinion?.
      Mr. Key: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, and I was wholly dissatisfied with the Minister's responses in Committee. He said that it was unlikely that such circumstances would arise in a battlefield situation and said the same on the issue of discipline. We were also told that, should they arise, the accused person would be withdrawn from the battlefield. He and the Government are on probation. We shall no doubt return to these matters, either when we consider the Armed Forces Bill or at a later stage. Bearing in mind all that and the moral victory that we have scored in the argument, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      RIGHT TO ELECT COURT-MARTIAL TRIAL
      Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 32, line 10, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Defence Council may by regulations make provision designating those persons who, either before or after the accused has elected for trial by court-martial. may counsel him on that decision'.
      The purpose of the amendment is to ensure—[Interruption.] Oh, I wonder whether we should pause at this point in order to call back some Members who seem to have decided to leave the Chamber. No; we are back to our usual small team.
      The purpose is to ensure that, either before or after the accused has made his or her decision to be tried by court martial, no person will be able to force the accused to change his or her mind, and opt to have the matter dealt with summarily.
      The amendment underlines the problems that the Bill creates, rather than solves. The same theme runs throughout the Bill. By introducing a potentially

      1191
      cumbersome and unnecessary opportunity for people to opt for court martial at the beginning of proceedings, the Government will create tensions within units. It is easy to imagine how aggrieved the non-commissioned officers and the commanding officer of a unit would be should one of their subordinates opt for court martial for a minor offence. That would convey the message—whether true or otherwise—that the unit was not being run well, and that the men did not have confidence in their superiors. It would certainly not reflect well on the commanding officer: it would give the impression that he was not in control of his unit-hence our assertion that the Bill undermines the authority of commanding officers.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a former barrack-room lawyer—
      Mr. Sayeed: Former?
      Dr. Godman: I shall not respond to that. I am asking a question.
      Can the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) give us an example or two of designated advisers? In the case of a private soldier, would the adviser be a regimental sergeant-major or, perhaps, a civilian?
      Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman, who I understand was a redcap, is aware of the issues. I promise him that I will come to his point, if he will hold his horses for a moment.
      As always, Conservative Members have an eye on how things operate in the real world, rather than on the clean-cut, perfect fairytale land in which the Government seem to think our armed forces operate. We tabled our amendment with an eye on how forces discipline works in practice.
      When the matter was considered in another place, my noble Friend Lord Attlee tabled an amendment similar to this one. As a serving member of the Territorial Army, he felt strongly that the new system allowing the accused to choose court martial for almost any offence was open to abuse by the accused's seniors. He feared that they might try to persuade the accused to opt for a summary trial on the grounds that it would be cheaper and quicker, and also that they might want to keep the matter "in house". The persuasion could take the form of superiors' making it clear that the accused's life could be very difficult in future, or suggesting indirectly that the accused's career prospects could be, shall we say, curtailed.
      There was an extensive debate in the other place on 18 January, the report of which my hon. Friends will find in columns 1012-14 of Hansard. I shall not delay the House by quoting from it.
      At present, there are no safeguards to prevent undue influence from being exerted on the accused. As the opportunities for courts martial increase, so does the potential for abuse of the system, but the Government seem to have done nothing to eliminate the possibility of such abuses. The Bill overlooks the realities of life in the services, just as it overlooks so many other things. Several times the Opposition have raised the spectre of "behind the barrack block" discipline. It happens now, it is wrong, and there is no doubt that the Bill will only increase the
      1192
      likelihood of its happening. We hope that the amendment will introduce additional protection, and that the Minister will accept this simple but important measure.
      Let me respond to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) by saying that we understand that the matter should not be in the hands of members of the chain of command. That would not comply with the European convention on human rights. We were told—indeed, my noble Friend was told in another place—that there would be access to lawyers independent of the chain of command. However, that in turn raises the issue of who the lawyers are to be.
      Members of the Army legal service, for example, are not perceived by the forces to be truly independent. They are independent legally, but they are part of the chain of command. We must therefore fall back on independent civilian lawyers, but that is a problem, not least because the Ministry of Defence is very bad at paying them. Before Christmas, the Lord Chancellor's Department changed the rules, which inhibits the proper working of the process. There is also the practical problem of how to get civilian lawyers to members of the forces in such circumstances. The situation is fraught with difficulty. That is why we are asking the Government for an assurance about how the process can be made to work.
      Dr. Godman: I will be brief because I hope to speak in the next debate, but I want to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that, if the amendment is put to a vote, I shall not support it.
      I have just returned from Kosovo, where I spoke to officers and other soldiers. I know that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has also been in Pristina and elsewhere. I think that those soldiers are doing a remarkably fine job, along with our RUC officers; but I am concerned about, say, the young soldier who is apprehended for some misdemeanour, and who might feel entirely alone and defenceless in a guardroom, surrounded by regimental police officers who are not always as sympathetic as military police officers. Will the Minister assure me that young soldiers and others who are caught up in such circumstances will have access to advice?
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: I confess to some surprise at the notion of "Be a carer: join the redcaps". Such a slogan would not be immediately recognised by many who have served in the armed forces as a reflection of their own experience.
      There is a problem here, although I am not sure that the amendment is the way to deal with it. Someone who had opted for court martial could easily find himself or herself the subject of pressure. If the other provisions of Army discipline provided that such pressure constituted an offence that could itself be subject to disciplinary proceedings, that would afford a measure of protection. Perhaps the Minister will be able to illuminate the matter by reference to some such provision elsewhere, but I think that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has drawn attention to a possible problem, which might cause certain individuals not only embarrassment, but something rather worse.
      I shall be interested to hear what solution the Minister has, if—in accordance with what might be described as the immaculate conception of the legislation so far—he refuses yet again to accept an amendment.
      Dr. Moonie: It is difficult to discern the underlying purpose of the amendment. I accept that its intention is to provide additional safeguards, rather than imposing restrictions on an individual's right to seek advice—which it could equally be read as doing.
      The point relating to the offence is legitimate, although we did not consider it when drafting the Bill. It would be dealt with more appropriately by the Committee that will consider the quinquennial review next year, as by that time we shall have had a chance to see how the new law is working in practice.
      Mr. Campbell: I think the Minister is right about the potential effect of the amendment. It could be interpreted as prescribing a very narrow range of people from whom a person who opts for court martial would be entitled to seek advice. That would clearly be contrary to the intention of the amendment. There is a possible problem, but the amendment may not be the best way to deal with it.
      Dr. Moonie: I agree. If the list included the sergeant-major and no one else, we would all have a bit of difficulty in accepting that.
      If all the regulations purported to do was provide a list of persons who might be able to advise the accused, the amendment is surely unnecessary. An informative list of suitable advisers can be made readily available at any time without the need for legislation. All three service discipline Acts contain provisions allowing for rules to be made governing, inter alia, the withdrawal of an election for trial by court martial.
      3 pm
      The current system provides that an accused charged with an offence will be given a pamphlet outlining his rights. He will also be afforded the services of an accused's adviser of his choice, who is normally an officer or warrant officer. Thus, from the outset, the accused will be made fully familiar with his rights under the disciplinary process.
      Under the present summary discipline system in the Army and Air Force, once the commanding officer finds that the charge has been proved, an accused may have up to 24 hours to decide whether to elect for trial by court martial, in accordance with provisions in Queen's Regulations. In the Royal Navy, before the evidence is heard by the commanding officer, the individual is given at least 24 hours to consider whether he wishes to exercise the option for trial by court martial, in cases where he has the right to elect.
      I admire the intention behind the amendment but, having read and reflected on it, and in view of the other provisions that we have made, I think that it is unnecessary.
      Mr. Key: The quinquennial Bill has at last appeared—the Christmas tree has been decked—so we await with interest the results of the assessment of how the new law is working in practice, as the Minister put it. I am glad that he has accepted that the intention was wholly constructive: to ensure that no undue pressure is put on people who might be persuaded to change their minds after their initial choice. Given that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 34, line 1, leave out clause 12.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 20, page 41, line 30, leave out—
      'no more severe than that originally awarded'
      and insert—
      'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
      No. 8, in page 41, line 41, leave out—
      'no more severe than that originally awarded'
      and insert—
      'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
      No. 9, in page 42, line 5, leave out—1
      'no more severe than that originally awarded'
      and insert—
      'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
      No. 10, in page 42, line 34, leave out—
      'no more severe than that originally awarded'
      and insert—
      'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
      No. 11, in page 42, line 43, leave out—
      'no more severe than that originally awarded'
      and insert—
      'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
      No. 12, in page 43, line 5, leave out—
      'no more severe than that originally awarded'
      and insert—
      'fair and just in all the circumstances'.
      Mr. Key: During the Bill's passage through both Houses, the Opposition have maintained that it undermines the authority of commanding officers. Clause 12, whereby the maximum punishment that the court martial can award is limited to the maximum that the CO could have awarded if he had dealt with the case summarily, is damaging and clearly undermines the authority of officers and the discipline system in the forces.
      The measure is doubly flawed—the provision is unnecessary to comply with the European convention on human rights. Lord Mayhew of Twysden made the position clear on Second Reading in the other place. He asked whether clause 12
      goes quite beyond and against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Crown Courts can of course impose higher sentences than magistrates. That is not something required by the convention on human rights and is itself likely to encourage elections for trial by court martial rather than by commanding officers—which surely must be deleterious.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 680-1.]
      The measure shows how the Government have got it wrong. They are not just gold plating and bending over backwards to comply with the convention, but going way beyond what is needed.
      The Government have argued that, because they see the summary justice system as non-compliant in that respect, we cannot use a comparison between a magistrates court and the Crown court in the civilian field, but an accused has an opportunity to be tried in a compliant court—that is

      1195
      to say, a court martial—which has a range of punishments available to it that is laid down in statute to match the seriousness of the charges being made.
      The fact that an accused has an opportunity to have those charges heard in front of a commanding officer, but in a non-compliant system, whose powers of punishment are more circumscribed, is of benefit merely to the accused. He is able to choose to have a convention-compliant trial if he so wishes. As, in any event, he is being given the facility to appeal the commanding officer's decision, that is further proof against challenge on that part of the Bill under the convention, so our proposal to strike out clause 12 restores the position of common sense and adds consistency with the civil sector.
      Under the provisions, when the accused can receive no greater punishment than the commanding officer can give, there is no disincentive to elect for court martial. A service man can insist on election for court martial for even the most minor offence. There is a danger that such cases may never be dealt with due to the backlog of more serious cases.
      Both the Select Committee on Defence and several peers in another place were concerned that the new provisions might mean that, without the risk of incurring a more severe punishment, more personnel might elect for trial by court martial. The Select Committee was told that, on the basis of surveys that the Army had conducted of Army offenders who were currently guests at Colchester prison, as well as officers and regimental sergeant majors, it was likely that the possibility of a more severe punishment would remain a disincentive. The majority of personnel believed that it remained
      quite high risk to go straight to a court-martial.
      However, the Bill will mean that the possibility of a more severe punishment is removed. Therefore, the disincentive is being removed.
      The Select Committee's witnesses believed that summary justice, administered by the commanding officer, would remain the preferred option of most offenders, but, in the case of personal animosity between a CO and an accused service man, the accused could elect for court martial to spite his CO and superiors.
      As has been made clear before, the Bill is an invitation to the barrack-room lawyer. Yet again, we see that too much in the Bill is based on a perfect world model, with accused service men being of good and reasonable character and team players, but it is obvious that the Bill will in many cases apply to service men who have done wrong. For a host of reasons, they may not wish to co-operate or acquiesce. They may feel that there are good reasons for them to play the system. The Bill gives them plenty of opportunities to do so.
      I know that only a tiny minority of people are subject to discipline anyway in the forces. Nevertheless, they can be a significant factor, making life difficult for everyone else.
      The Select Committee shared our concern that the more protracted process of courts martial might lead to delays in justice being done and being seen to be done quickly, and that aggrieved colleagues of an accused person might feel tempted to take matters into their own hands.
      For those reasons, we believe that the clause should be removed. It will undermine the status and authority of the commanding officer. It runs the real risk of abuse by the
      1196
      rare dissatisfied and disaffected elements in the armed services, and could lead to unwelcome delays in the administration of justice.
      In Committee, the Minister recognised that the Government were bending over backwards to comply with the convention. He said that he wanted it to be watertight. That is fair enough, but the Government have not made a sound case for the inclusion of the clause.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, even if a British court made a judgment that the Government had erred against the ECHR, all that would be needed would be a defence counsel instruction to courts martial that they should not impose a greater sentence than that available to the commanding officer.
      Therefore, the foundations of the clause lie on uncertain ground. I invite the Minister to make a firm case for the clause. If he cannot, we shall have to see what to do about it, but it is a sensible suggestion. I look forward to the Minister saying why clause 12 should stand part of the Bill.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has said. It seems that the Government are driven by their interpretation of the European convention on human rights, but, from what he has said, it is not clear that the convention demands the clause. My impression is that it does not demand it and that the matter could be dealt with perfectly sensibly in the way that he has indicated.
      The clause seems to have significant disadvantages, which my hon. Friend has set out well. To say that someone can demand to go to a higher court, or to a more substantial court—a superior court—where, normally, higher penalties would prevail, but that those higher penalties would not prevail should that person exercise that right, seems thoroughly illogical and almost entirely inconsistent with our magistrates court-Crown court parallel, which one would have expected to be followed.
      I consequently support what my hon. Friend has said. I shall listen with great care to the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Viggers: I beg to move amendments Nos. 7 to 12 inclusive, which stand in my name.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to move the amendments. They have effectively been moved with the lead amendment; he just speaks to them.
      Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was anxious to point out that the amendments in my name have a similar purpose to that of amendment No. 1
      The amendments would ensure that the summary appeals court specifically has a power to impose a sentence that is
      fair and just in all the circumstances,
      rather than, as the Bill currently provides, a sentence that is
      no more severe than that originally awarded.
      I think that that is an important point. In November 1999, the Government estimated that of the approximately 7,000 cases heard annually by commanding officers, there are about 850 to 900 appeals—although they have

      1197
      increased that guesstimate to about 1,500. The number of appeals will of course have a bearing on the number of service personnel and lawyers employed to deal with them. If the Government's estimates are correct, the system costs approximately £9 million annually. However, if the number of appeals should increase, the system's costs will increase accordingly.
      In Committee, the Minister was very fair in stating clearly that the civilian court system, on appeal, provides an opportunity for the senior court to impose a heavier sentence than that imposed by the junior court or court of first instance.
      Subsequently, the Minister tried to explain to us why he thought that, to be compliant with the European convention on human rights, it is necessary that the military system should contain three elements, the first of which is that the accused must be offered an alternative of trial by court martial. The second is that the court martial should not be able to impose a greater penalty than that which the commanding officer could have imposed initially. The third is that, on appeal, the summary appeal court should not impose a sentence greater than that imposed by the commanding officer.
      I am seriously concerned that, if the appeal court cannot impose a sentence greater than that imposed by the commanding officer—if there is no right for the appeal court to increase a sentence—the number of appeals will be very substantially greater than that currently anticipated by the Government. What has an accused to lose if he discovers that his sentence cannot be increased on appeal?
      It seems to be entirely sensible that, in this matter, the military courts should follow the same system used by the civilian courts. I defy the Minister to explain to us clearly where article 6 of the convention on human rights provides that it is not possible to allow an appeal court to impose a higher sentence. For those reasons, I support amendment No. 1.
      Dr. Moonie: I tell the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that we are advised that the right of appeal will render us compatible with the convention only if the accused is not in jeopardy of a more severe sentence on appeal.
      As much as I should like to satisfy the request of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) for clarity in the law, I regret that that is not something that is at my disposal. If the law were a bit more clear generally, we would not need so many lawyers to explain it.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Moonie: No, I do not intend to give way as there is no time. I am taking up time that we could spend on Third Reading.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is on this point.
      Dr. Moonie: All right, I will give way as I referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful. I think that the Minister will appreciate that we are considering two different issues. The issue of whether on appeal from the
      1198
      commanding officer a sentence could be increased is one thing, and a rule that it should not be increased is fully understandable and may well be consistent with the convention. However, that is a quite different issue from that of whether, when a court martial is requested or demanded in the first instance, the sentence should still be only that which a commanding officer could impose. It really is important that the Minister should tell the House his advice on that point.
      Dr. Moonie: I shall be as clear and as brief as I can. My advice is that if the court to which a person elects his proceedings to be transferred is to be compliant, it must have no greater penalty than that of the court from which he elects to withdraw. That is the reason.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Dr. Moonie: No, I cannot give way again.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I ask the Minister to give way. It is very important.
      Dr. Moonie: No; it is not important enough for me. I have given way once and that is quite enough. I am guided by convention, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should recognise that.
      The change proposed in clause 12 is to ensure that an accused is not disadvantaged by electing for court martial trial. The rationale for that is to ensure that no one is dissuaded from exercising from the outset the right to be heard by a European court of human rights-compliant court solely because he or she is at risk of a more severe penalty. That is a fundamental point in the advice that we have received.
      Article 6 of the convention provides the right to a fair trial, which, in convention terms, is not provided by a summary hearing. A summary hearing, for example, is not heard in public, and the defendant is not entitled to legal representation. Nevertheless, an accused may choose to accept such a hearing and decide to be dealt with summarily—as we believe that most accused still will, despite the Bill's provisions. If the accused does wish to exercise the right to a fair trial, it is wrong that, in doing so, he should run the risk of a greater penalty. Capping the sentencing power available to the court martial is the only possible way of securing article 6 rights for the individual.
      I am sorry, but I cannot accept amendment No. 1.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Key: Undoubtedly the Minister's words will be heeded in interpreting the law when, in future, matters are considered by the courts—that is how these things work now. However, I regret that he has decided that he must fall back on the legal advice that he has been given without giving way to my right hon. and learned and distinguished Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who has shed such light on dark corners of the law over so many years in the House. However, that is the position that the Minister has adopted—he is clearly in a take it or leave it mood today.
      As I said, we have to make a judgment on the matter and decide whether to press the amendment to a Division—although my right hon. and learned Friend says

      1199
      that he thinks that the current position is thoroughly illogical and inconsistent, and I entirely agree with him in that analysis; my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has made a powerful case in speaking to his amendments; and the House has not been very well served in this debate. In view of the time, and the protected business that follows this debate, I must beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      3.16 pm
      The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      As I am mindful that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in our limited time, I shall be brief. The Bill has a simple purpose: to ensure that, in two key spheres—summary discipline and pre-trial custody—our procedures are compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is not a casual concern, but one based on court rulings and subsequent legal advice.
      The Bill deals with that concern. We believe that it safeguards our procedures from the likelihood of successful challenge, although, as we have acknowledged, it is impossible for any Government to provide an absolute guarantee that procedures may not fall foul of a court ruling at some stage in the future. However, we believe that the Bill does what is necessary to preserve critical spheres of the system of discipline, and that it does so in a manner that is proportionate to the convention's requirements.
      The Government are fully aware of the imperatives of discipline and of the distinctive features of service life—although the Opposition may seek to give the impression that they have a monopoly on understanding those matters. We are not prepared to trifle with service discipline, and the Bill demonstrates that fact. The Bill also demonstrates what we have had to do because of court rulings and subsequent legal advice. It is difficult to imagine that any Government exercising those proper responsibilities would or could have acted otherwise.
      The Bill preserves the authority of the system of discipline in the armed forces. In doing so, it achieves the Government's and the services' objectives. That is a tribute to the excellent work of our Bill team and legal advisers. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Bill might command the support of the whole House. I commend it on that basis.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has completed his speech.
      3.18 pm
      Mr. Key: It was revealing, last week, to see the newspapers reporting the warning given by the Home Secretary for public bodies not to "panic" over introduction of new laws guaranteeing human rights. When one hears the phrase "don't panic" in the context of the armed forces, one is reminded of the catch phrase of
      1200
      the dithering Corporal Jones, in "Dad's Army". In almost every episode, he would cry, "Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring!"
      Perhaps we could liken Defence Ministers to Corporal Jones, who was by trade a butcher, as they have certainly made enough choice cuts to the armed forces. Like Corporal Jones, they also seem to have been running around in a panic, by introducing this flawed and unnecessary Bill without thinking of its consequences.
      In a report, on 30 March 1999, The Daily Telegraph quoted various people, including a member of the human rights task force, whom it said had
      been combing through the whole range of public policy to identify where problems were likely to occur.
      One member of the task force was quoted as saying:
      It's a litigant's charter. The lawyers will make a fortune.
      What's new? The story continued:
      Ministers and officials from each Department have been summoned by the Task Force led by Mike O'Brien, the Home Office Minister, to assess their readiness for the legislation.
      Has the Ministry of Defence been summoned before the task force? Was it before or after the Bill was drafted?
      Mr. Spellar: No.
      Mr. Key: The Ministry of Defence has been spared. How very interesting.
      One of the characteristics of our debates has been the Government's steadfast reluctance to give any indication of the legal advice that they have received. I suspect that we have witnessed another shameful episode of the Government saying one thing and doing another. They have said that the Bill is necessary to protect the authority of commanding officers, but they have been kowtowing to the Home Office on human rights.
      It has been a strange Bill to follow through the House. There has been a curious lack of Government amendments. The Government like to say that that is because of the quality of their drafting, but, with no disrespect to the Government's lawyers, I suspect that it is because they wanted to rush the Bill through in the shortest possible time. The 2 October deadline is fast approaching and all the stops must be pulled out.
      Ministers have given commitments in both Houses to come up with a single Act to amalgamate the three service discipline Acts. That is a serious commitment, in view of the chequered history of the issue. Successive Governments have been seeking to achieve such amalgamation since 1991. There is no evidence that the Law Commission is in a position to provide parliamentary draftsmen to help in the work. Recent parliamentary questions have confirmed that. Despite the expressed good intentions of Ministers, there is no evidence that their aim can be achieved in a reasonable time scale. The latest ministerial estimate was that it would not be achieved in the next quinquennial Act, due next year, but in the one after. Give or take 10 years is a fairly safe time scale—after all, we have been trying for the past 10 years—but it is not good enough. We shall seek to return to that issue.
      In most cases during the passage of the Bill, Ministers have just ignored what we have said. The Opposition are used to making arguments that are then voted down by the Government. The Government are often rightly

      1201
      accused of high-handedness and arrogance. Ministers have not been able to justify their conclusions on the Bill and have gone into autopilot mode, parroting the briefing material.
      I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has had to leave the Chamber, although I entirely understand why. I would prefer him to be sitting in front of me as I quote his words from Standing Committee, but I must draw the House's attention to an exchange on 2 March. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) had asked a question and been told that the Minister would respond later. My hon.
      Friend said:
      That is a trifle unsatisfactory. We have to decide now whether clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
      My hon. Friend then asked whether the Committee could adjourn to allow the Under-Secretary to take advice. The Chairman rightly said:
      It is a matter for the Under-Secretary how he chooses to respond and a matter for Committee how they vote.
      The Minister then said:
      Indeed it is, Mr. Malins. As my reasonable offer has been rejected, I shall not bother to enlighten the Committee at a later stage. The Bill is as it stands and I shall support it from start to finish.
      My hon. Friend then rose to intervene, but the Under-Secretary carried on:
      The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat or rise on a point of order. I am under no obligation to explain anything other than that which I choose to explain. The Bill is as it stands.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 March 2000; c. 75.]
      I greatly regret that exchange. There are many other examples. In the Select Committee on Defence, my hon. Friend asked the Minister for the Armed Forces:
      Can you guarantee that…the new system of military justice that it brings in would be proof against ECHR judgments?
      The Minister replied:
      I could no more guarantee that than the Member for Mid-Sussex could have guaranteed it when it was introduced in the 1996 legislation.
      That is fair enough, but we have been told time and again in Standing Committee that the Bill would gold plate against the ECHR. We do not know where this unsatisfactory Bill will lead us.
      In the end, it is down to the forces. The Government have tried to make military law ECHR-compliant. I was delighted earlier this week when the Chief of the General Staff launched his excellent document, "The Values and Standards of the British Army". It was many years in the making. I congratulate him and all the staff at the adjutant-general's department. I draw the attention of the House to two sections of the document. The section on the core values of the Army, in paragraph 11 on page 7, says:
      Soldiers volunteering for the British Army accept that, by putting the needs of the Service before their own, they will forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. But in return they can at all times expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as an individual, and to be rewarded by reasonable terms and conditions of service.
      Paragraph 15 says:
      Because discipline is so vital to success on operations, commanders must be able to enforce it when necessary. That requires clearly understood rules and a military legal system which can deal with offences such as absence, desertion or insubordination which are not found in civil law. And if it is to work in war, such a system must be in place in peace. for it cannot be turned on and
      1202
      off at will. Discipline must therefore be rigorously but fairly upheld by all those in positions of authority, and self-discipline must be deeply rooted.
      No doubt the Bill will reach the statute book shortly, in spite of all our argument. We feel that it will undermine the system on which British military success has depended for generations. We are mindful of the fact that, in the end, discipline is self-discipline. It is in the hands of commanding officers and of every member of Her Majesty's forces in seeking to live up to the ethos and standards of British military life, which have served this nation so well down the ages.
      3.26 pm
      Mr. Mike Gapes: I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Defence and of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. Some of those who have contributed today have forgotten the basis on which the Bill was introduced. It is necessary for two reasons: to comply with the European convention on human rights and because the legislation introduced by the Conservatives in 1996 was clearly inadequate and, following the Hood case, was going to lead to problems and legal judgments against the Government. We have heard many complaints from the Conservatives today, but they have to recognise that their 1996 legislation is inadequate and has to be replaced.
      The Select Committee drew attention to several issues, pointing out that the Committee's 1996 recommendations for a consolidated Act for the three services had not been acted on. The report says:
      We regard the consolidation of Service law as an urgent matter and recommend that the MoD address this matter with more urgency than has been the case hitherto.
      As a member of the Select Committee, I want to place on record the important need for the issue to be taken forward. That argument should be supported on both sides of the House. If consolidation is not proceeded with, the Select Committee will have to come back to the issue.
      I congratulate the Government on submitting the Bill to Select Committee scrutiny before its consideration in Standing Committee. The Select Committee concluded its brief report by saying:
      We hope that on future occasions the MoD will see the benefits of introducing legislation in draft form so that we can take up the opportunity to comment on proposals before they are formally introduced into Parliament as Bills.
      That is an important step forward that should apply to all Government Departments. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important to ensure that we get legislation right. The fact that we were able to consider the Bill in a limited way before it went through the House was a step forward. It would help the modernisation of the House and give us more effective government if Select Committees conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of all legislation.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Menzies Campbell: A theme that has run through our proceedings has been that the Bill is a legal necessity that has been brought upon by the adoption in domestic law of the European convention on human rights. I shall put the matter rather differently and say that it is not simply a matter of legal necessity; it is a matter of desirability in a democratic society whose armed forces cannot be immune from the development of the rights of

      1203
      citizens, and in particular of those rights as they are now codified in the convention. It seems, therefore, that it could be expected that all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would wish to subscribe to the objectives that are set out in the Bill. It appears, from what has been said by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Opposition spokesman, that the House will not divide on Third Reading. In a sense, that is matter for some congratulation.
      Mr. Key indicated dissent.
      Mr. Campbell: If the Opposition are proposing to divide the House, that is a matter of considerable regret.
      I shall make three points on the justification for the Bill. First, in the post-cold war world, the armed forces have an evolving role. The structure of discipline within the armed services should reflect that. Secondly, the role of our volunteer and professional services is to defend democratic values. That is why they are deployed in difficult and dangerous places throughout the world as we conduct these proceedings. It is correct that we should ensure that the system of discipline that directs these deployments is one, so far as is practicable and compatible with the functions of the armed services, that represents the very democratic values that they are doing their best to defend.
      Thirdly, the armed services should reflect what is best in our society. We should expect them to reflect the values that we regard as being important and fundamental. I do not accept the argument that the armed services are so special and so different that they should be dealt with in a way that ignores the rights conferred upon citizens by the European convention. That approach turns the armed services into a ghetto in one respect, and perhaps also disconnects them from the civilian society of which, under our system, they form part, but to which they are subordinate because responsibility for the direction of our military rests in this place, particularly on the Treasury Bench.
      The Bill has desirable as well as necessary objectives. It affords a fresh look at a new system of discipline for the armed services. It reflects the values which all citizens, whether in uniform or not, are entitled to expect. If its Third Reading is pushed to a Division, that is why I shall be in the Government Lobby.
      3.32 pm
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I shall explain why I disagree in part with what he says, though I agree in part. Yes, there are desirable aspects of the Bill, and it is right that our law should seek to comply with the European convention on human rights. However, there are three points which the Government would do well to listen to more carefully than sadly they appear to have done during the Bill's passage.
      I was deeply disappointed with the responses of the Minister. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber because I do not like to criticise Members in their absence. However, I must make the point, and I shall make it good in relation to the three matters that I wish to take up.
      1204
      I think it came out in our debate on clause 12 that we shall put in place a system of summary justice within the armed forces that can be sustained only on the basis that it is voluntary. We have all been brought up to believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, made the point clearly when reading from the relevant document that I believe was put out by the armed forces—that when an individual joins the armed forces he agrees to some extent, and I would not wish to push it too far, to forgo some of his civilian rights for the purposes of good order and military discipline. One of the things that he accepts is that he will be subject to the discipline of his commanding officer in relation to comparatively minor offences.
      It is clear from the structure of the Bill that the individual will have to be asked whenever he is brought up on colonel's orders whether he will accept that summary discipline. The colonel—the Army—cannot say, "No, this is simply a matter of colonel's orders. You can appeal if you dislike the result, but in the first place you must go before the colonel." The individual has, in effect, to put aside his right to court martial. He has a right to go to court martial even for an offence that results in 24 hours in the guard room. That seems silly. That is why I sought to intervene on the Under-Secretary of State to get him to explain the situation more fully.
      I think that there was a misunderstanding—I would not like to call it an abuse, but I think that that was the result—of our parliamentary procedures on the Minister's part. If a Bill has been sensibly discussed over six or seven days in Committee and then comes before the House on Report, when serious and sensible questions are asked, and the Minister does not attempt to answer them, he is falling short of what the House is entitled to expect.
      Summary discipline has now become voluntary under the Bill. Of course, there will be a great deal of behind-the-scenes pressure to accept that voluntary discipline, but it would be much better if it were up front. I have great respect for Government lawyers—I was responsible for them for many years—but I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting that the European convention requires summary discipline to be voluntary. I shall be grateful if the Minister, or his officials, will write to draw my attention to any learned articles that support that point of view so we may reflect further upon it.
      I move on to quasi-judicial confirmation of custody. If something untoward happens in an active service situation—I use those words advisedly—the individual can still be held in custody for only 48 hours, or a maximum of 96 with the confirmation of a judicial officer. After charge, he can be held in custody only if that is confirmed by a judicial officer.
      I think that the House is perfectly happy with that parallel system in circumstances other than active service, and it is entirely practicable to achieve it. However, it seems nonsensical on active service. The Government have not made clear the extent to which there is flexibility in, to use the words that appear frequently in the Bill,
      "as soon as is reasonably practicable."
      Much has been made of the use of video links and the impracticability of using them on the battlefield, which would seem to need little debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made the point that ships at sea maintain electronic silence. It is

      1205
      absurd that they should be breaking that silence to obtain approval for continued custody in the rare but, if it occurs, probably important circumstances where custody has to be imposed.
      That brings me back to the point that I made on Second Reading in the context of the European convention. It should be remembered that the convention allows derogation from its terms only in circumstances that amount to war or other public emergency threatening the safety of the nation. All the former Yugoslavia conflicts, including Bosnia and Kosovo, demonstrate that many if not most of modern-day conflicts do not fall into the category of war. Happily, they do not fall either into the category of emergencies that put the safety of the nation at risk, but they do put at risk the safety of members of the armed forces. Effective maintenance of discipline is therefore essential.
      I hope that the Government, through our ambassadors and others, will see whether the European convention, which was incorporated into our law in 1999, can be brought up to date so that it is practical for the 21st century. At present it is not very practical. That is not entirely the Government's fault, as it was difficult to strike a balance on the decision to incorporate, but it is one of the significant disadvantages of that decision.
      The Bill will pass to the statute book in due course, but I hope that the Government will take account of the points that I have raised. If my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are minded to divide the House, those matters are sufficiently important to justify their decision, and I shall be quite content to support that decision in the Lobbies.
      3.41 pm
      Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be even briefer than usual. Former service chiefs have expressed doubt about the Bill, although that is not shared by present service chiefs. I do not know how reluctantly or enthusiastically they endorse the Bill, but nothing matters except the rights of our service men and women.
      I am not convinced that those rights have been strengthened by the Bill. One amendment would have strengthened them by making legal aid available at the point of arrest rather than at the point of charge. Many soldiers are treated hideously, and the present Minister for the Armed Forces is the third to have to deal with the Stankovich case. In all my years as a soldier, as a journalist working alongside the Army and now as a Member of Parliament, I have never come across another case in which injustice was so gross or blatant—and the man involved was not just a British soldier, but a British hero.
      I plead with the House: we must introduce a measure, perhaps in the next Bill on this subject, to protect our national heroes and not penalise them.
      3.42 pm
      Mr. Blunt: It is a bitter irony that the House is about to approve a Bill, driven by the European convention on human rights, that will weaken the system of justice for our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
      The first part of the Bill deals with custody rules. It is the one part of the Bill that is driven by a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. That judgment involved a man called Hood, the only soldier that I know
      1206
      of to take his case to the European Court. He was complaining about the unfairness of the Army's rules of custody and the ability of commanding officers to remand people in custody. Hood had been absent without leave four times before his commanding officer arrested him, and judgment in his case took five years.
      The Bill creates a massive administrative burden involving judicial officers, and so on. That burden is not the result of manifest injustice in the armed forces: it has been imposed simply to meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
      The second part of the Bill changes the period in which a soldier may elect for court martial. That will make such a soldier's position worse. The Bill does not allow a commanding officer an opportunity to find a soldier not guilty before that soldier must decide to accept his award or go to court martial. The Bill will force a soldier to make that decision earlier, so removing the opportunity to be cleared by his commanding officer.
      Commanding officers are not really aware of the detail of the Bill. Neither was I, until I served on the Select Committee, and took part in the debates in Standing Committee and on Second and Third Readings. The Bill did not seem very important. Commanding officers will find, however, that the administration of justice for armed forces personnel will be seriously undermined. The Bill will demand rules of evidence that non-commissioned officers—the first links in the chain of command in the execution of justice—will not be able to meet. How do the Government think that those NCOs will be able to maintain discipline in the sub-units that they administer now that they cannot use the summary discipline procedure?
      I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will divide the House on this matter. I used to be a regular soldier, and I have to say that the Bill does not advance the interests of armed forces personnel. Instead, it makes their position worse. I accept that the rules relating to custody in the first part of the Bill are driven by a European convention judgment, but the Government have offered no evidence that the rest of the Bill has been required by other judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.
      It is time to do what we should have done in 1951, had we only had the prescience. We should make a reservation for our armed forces from the European convention on human rights and the European Court. In that way we might prevent what is a bitter and extraordinary irony—that this Bill will make the administration of justice for our soldiers, sailors and airmen worse rather than better.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 113.

      Division No. 152]

      [3.46 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Ballard, Jackie

      Ainger, Nick

      Banks, Tony

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Barron, Kevin

      Allan, Richard

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Austin, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      1207

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Flint, Caroline

      Best, Harold

      Follett, Barbara

      Blackman, Liz

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Foulkes, George

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Galloway, George

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gapes, Mike

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Browne, Desmond

      Gerrard, Neil

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Burden, Richard

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Burnett, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burstow, Paul

      Goggins, Paul

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hain, Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Harvey, Nick

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Casale, Roger

      Healey, John

      Caton, Martin

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coleman, Iain

      Hurst, Alan

      Colman, Tony

      Hutton, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Corbett, Robin

      Illsley, Eric

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Corston, Jean

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Jenkins, Brian

      Crausby, David

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Denham, John

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kidney, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Drown, Ms Julia

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Edwards, Huw

      Laxton, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lepper, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Levitt, Tom

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Linton, Martin

      1208

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Salter, Martin

      Lock, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCabe, Steve

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonnell, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWalter, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

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

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Spellar, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stevenson, George

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Maxton, John

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Merron, Gillian

      Stringer, Graham

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Morley, Elliot

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Todd, Mark

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Olner, Bill

      Touhig, Don

      O'Neill, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Öpik, Lembit

      Truswell, Paul

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Tyler, Paul

      Pendry, Tom

      Tynan, Bill

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pike, Peter L

      Wareing, Robert N

      Plaskitt, James

      Watts, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      White, Brian

      Pond, Chris

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pope, Greg

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wood, Mike

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Woolas, Phil

      Raynsford, Nick

      Worthington, Tony

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Rendel, David

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wyatt, Derek

      Rooney, Terry

      Roy, Frank

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ruane, Chris

      Mr. Clive Belts and

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bercow, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Baldry, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      Beggs, Roy

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      1209

      Brazier, Julian

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burns, Simon

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Madel, Sir David

      Collins, Tim

      Maginnis, Ken

      Cran, James

      Maples, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Mates, Michael

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Day, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan, Alan

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ottaway, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Faber, David

      Paice, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Flight, Howard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Prior, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gray, James

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Green, Damian

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Greenway, John

      Spring, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Streeter, Gary

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Heald, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Horam, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Wardle, Charles

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Wells, Bowen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Whittingdale, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Yeo, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. John Randall and

      Loughton, Tim

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-

      Luff, Peter

      Brown.

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

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY-SECOND PART]
Opposition Day

  Patten Report
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has accepted the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Before I call the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I should make a short statement. Madam Speaker has had to impose a 10-minute rule on Back-Bench speeches between the conclusion of the opening speech and the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member who winds up on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party.
  4.2 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; condemns the Government's decision to remove its Royal title; and calls for the postponement of the implementation of other controversial recommendations in the Patten Commission Report on Policing in Northern Ireland until the 'new dispensation' on which it was predicated has truly arrived.
  Before I turn to the substance of the debate, may I express my condolences and those of my colleagues to the families of the two Royal Engineers who died in an accident at Lough Foyle. We do not know the details of how the tragedy occurred, but we extend our sympathies to the families.
  On the Patten report and the position and title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it is ironic that the Government amendment almost quotes from the terms of reference given to the Patten commission under the Belfast agreement. The first sentence of the terms set out in the agreement requires the Patten commission to
  bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements.
  We would agree with those objectives, but the flawed and shoddy Patten report fails to meet those terms of reference.
  Instead of producing proposals that would encourage widespread support for the police, the report will discourage such support. It has already discouraged support by its total lack of recognition of the service and sacrifice of police officers. On 29 October 1999, in a thoughtful interview in the Belfast News Letter, Monsignor Denis Faul commented on that point, saying:
  An opportunity for unity was lost this year in the failure to honour and respect the 302 RUC men and women who were murdered and almost 9,000 who were severely injured defending the Catholic and Protestant parts of the community. Even the Patten Report itself inexplicably failed to pay a sufficient decent and detailed tribute to the 302 dead and the thousands wounded.
  The report has also discouraged support for policing by ordering a change of the title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary without presenting any rational argument

  1211
  for that or a shred of evidence in support of the change. By contrast, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs commented in a 1998 report that:
  Until there is a change in the status of Northern Ireland, inevitably many of the symbols of government will be British. There is no clear reason to make a special case for the RUC by changing its name without changing the name of other organisations which are also either "Royal" or "British". The official symbols associated with the force are not central to the status of the RUC in the eyes of the community. They attract the loyalty of many in Northern Ireland. There is no good reason to change them.
  The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee took that view just two years ago, and the Government should hold it today.
  In 1995, in a community attitude survey for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, Catholic respondents divided equally on the question of a name change. The name was not seen as a major reason for low Catholic recruitment. We all know that there are different reasons for that. After the Patten report, the authority commissioned a new survey to see whether that position had changed. It had not. Fewer than half—45 per cent.—of Catholic respondents thought that the Catholic community would give more support to a renamed police force. A similar number—41 per cent.—thought that a name change would make no difference at all to Catholics.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that if a mere change of name would increase support by 45 per cent. of the Catholic community, it would be worth doing?
  Mr. Trimble: I was making the point that there was a near equal division within the Catholic community on the significance of a name change, even after the Patten report. I shall come later to Catholic support for the RUC, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested by the figures that I shall give.
  The Police Authority survey also found that a significant proportion thought a name change would decrease Protestant support for the police. My conclusion is that the change would bring little gain, and appreciable loss.
  The Patten report has further discouraged widespread support through its proposed changes to the badge of the RUC. Again, it offers no evidence or argument for discarding symbols that are in fact inclusive. There are three symbols—the Crown, the shamrock and the harp of Brian Born. A member of the Government—whom I shall not name—told me that he had seen the RUC badge only comparatively recently, and that he thought that anyone who set out to design a badge of an inclusive nature for the police force of Northern Ireland would find the existing badge ideal. 1 agree entirely with the good sense of that member of the Government, but I would never dream of outing him.
  Patten discourages support for the new arrangements by its ban on the Union flag. Once again, it disregards the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which said, in 1998:
  As Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the Union Flag is the appropriate flag to be flown over police stations.
  Patten also discourages support by its insensitivity towards RUC widows and
  disabled police officers. The report contains just a score of lines about widows and
  1212
  disabled police officers. It recommends that additional resources be made available to help those people, which is welcome, but the scant recognition for them, added to the grievous insult of removal of the force's royal title and symbols, has added to their pain.
  Patten also discourages support for the new arrangements by proposing that there should be discrimination against Protestants in the recruitment of regular and part-time police officers. That is a clear departure from the Belfast agreement, in which the Government undertook
  as a particular priority to create a statutory obligation
  on various public authorities
  to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion.
  That obligation was carried into law by the section 76 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but, within two years, Parliament is being asked to derogate from that priority by enabling what is called 50:50 recruitment of regular officers and a targeted recruitment of 1,000 new reservists only from Catholic nationalist areas, however those may be defined. In the report, Patten claimed that he would put human rights at the core of policing. Those measures make a mockery of that claim. In all the ways that I have mentioned, Patten fails to fulfil its terms of reference.
  In a press release in September last year Mr. Patten, in presenting the report, said that one of the key objectives of the report was to:
  take politics out of policing.
  That is a nice little soundbite, but it does not stand up in the light of the report. Many people in Northern Ireland find it ironic that someone who says that he is taking politics out of policing proposes a police force that is to be dominated by politicians and district policing partnerships, again dominated by politicians—and constructed, particularly with the gerrymandering of Belfast, in such a way as to enable certain paramilitary-related politicians to exercise undue influence over policing. That is not taking politics out of policing. Not that I think that that objective is correct: in the right way, politics should be involved in policing; it is proper for elected politicians to be involved in police policy and the accountability of police officers.
  Patten is trying to do something quite separate and he has got himself confused. He is trying to take the constitutional issue out of policing, as if it was still a live issue. He is trying to deal with the situation as if the state and institutions of Northern Ireland should be neutral as between the two competing national identities. The agreement itself would take the constitutional issue out of Northern Ireland politics and institutions if parties would accept and implement the agreement in its entirety. The commission failed to observe key constitutional aspects of the agreement.
  On constitutional matters, the agreement went beyond a mere acceptance of the consent principle. The relevant section of the agreement is paragraph 1, which states that the parties
  recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status.
  The key word there is "legitimacy". The same paragraph states that the parties acknowledge that that choice
  freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union.

  1213
  Again, the emphasis is on legitimacy. The parties are recognising the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. Put simply, all the parties to the agreement, whether or not they will acknowledge it, are accepting British sovereignty in Northern Ireland. There cannot then be any objection to the normal and reasonable expression of that sovereignty.
  The Belfast agreement did not create a neutral state or envisage only neutral symbols. There is only one sovereignty in Northern Ireland and there should be no unreasonable restriction on the exercise and display of that sovereignty. The agreement acknowledges that there should be sensitivity in the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, but there would be no need to acknowledge the need for sensitivity if we were dealing with a state that was neutral.
  Patten seems to have assumed that there should be such neutrality. In doing so he was following an out-of-date agenda associated with one interpretation of the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985 with its overtones of joint sovereignty. But the Anglo-Irish agreement has been replaced by the Belfast agreement with its clear line on sovereignty. I am sorry to see that some people still seem to operate within the pre-Belfast agreement mentality. I was particularly disappointed in an article by Sean Farren, a leading member of the SDLP, which seemed to indicate that that party has not yet fully absorbed the implication of the Belfast agreement provisions on sovereignty.
  On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has somewhat greater awareness of this. I noticed in a speech that he made last week a reference to a need for a reasonable balance and:
  a sensitive use of symbols, so that more than lip service is paid to the principle of consent.
  Patten did not even pay lip service to that principle. Clearly, I agree with the Secretary of State that we need more than lip service to be paid.
  There is also a striking contrast with the recently published report of the review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. Its recommendations with regard to the courts are in complete contrast to Patten's recommendations on the police. The review suggests that the title should remain the royal courts of justice, that the badge which is the royal coat of arms should be retained and that the Union flag should continue to be flown.
  The police and the courts are part of the same system. It would be wrong to have such a completely different approach to symbols within the same system. There should be consistency and it is clear what that consistency should be. The Government have not yet responded to that review. I hope that they are not so determined to defend Patten's mistakes that they extend his mistaken approach to the courts system itself.
  One of the interesting aspects of the review is its survey into community attitudes. The opening part of the review makes a brief reference to symbols, merely saying that the Crown symbols "did not feature prominently". The review reports that the courts achieved high confidence ratings from the public: 70 per cent. of those surveyed had confidence in the fairness of the system. Ratings for component parts of the system in some cases were higher: 77 per cent. had confidence in the judges, 75 per cent. in juries, 74 per cent. in the police and 72 per cent.
  1214
  in lawyers—a finding that will come as a considerable surprise and as a great relief to many hon. Members. In each case when those overall figures are analysed in terms of religion, there is a spread between Catholics and Protestants of about 10 to 15 per cent, with Protestants having higher confidence levels.
  The breakdown for confidence in the police is interesting: 85 per cent. of Protestants have confidence, whereas with Catholics the figure is 59 per cent. Patten's equivalent references to surveys of popular opinion are slightly different. The approval rating for the police is 81 per cent. for Protestants and 43 per cent. for Catholics. The surveys took place only one year apart. The contrast between the 59 and 43 per cent. ratings for Catholic approval of policing—the 59 per cent. showing in the later of the two surveys—should be followed up.
  Interestingly, there is published in the Belfast Telegraph tonight an opinion survey in which 61 per cent. of Catholics indicate that they have confidence in the police. The suggestion that the Catholic community has a serious problem with the police needs to be looked at more closely. Yes, tonight's opinion poll indicates that 31 per cent. of Catholics say that they have no confidence in the police, and that figure is higher than one would want, like or expect in a normal society, but it is not so high as to justify provisions such as those in Patten.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Patten distinguishes clearly between those who have a generalised confidence in the police and those who have specific local confidence? Patten says that Catholics often have greater confidence in their local police than they do in the police taken as a whole. Patten has identified the components that the right hon. Gentleman is describing.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely my next sentence. One must draw a distinction between the generalised opinion given and opinions given on the basis of knowledge of people in the locality and direct personal experience with them, and compare like with like. The figures that I gave were comparing like with like. As the hon. Gentleman said, Patten reported that when people were asked about their local police, the police were given a higher approval rating. There is an even higher approval rating from Catholics who had direct personal contact with the police—69 per cent.—although the approval rating from Protestants was a little lower at 77 per cent. Perhaps people were moving away from making a generalised political statement to one based on experience, and what matters is experience.
  It is also worth noting that the reporting of crimes in Catholic areas is at the same level as in Protestant areas. In terms of what people do as opposed to what they say, in an abstract way there is a clear message coming across that there is a high level of confidence. Anyone taking a sensible approach to these matters should have focused on that.
  The conclusion to be drawn is that although there are problems, they are exaggerated and exacerbated by the political attitudes that are struck by some. The politics that needs to be taken out of policing is the politics of agitation and hostile propagandising against the police. I fear that far too many nationalist politicians have engaged in that. If nationalist politicians adopted a more

  1215
  responsible attitude, that would achieve much more than everything in Patten. Without such a responsible attitude, Patten is a waste of time which has caused needless hurt to many and serious harm to policing.
  I shall not go into detail on the proposed changes to the structure and size of the police, because I consider such discussion to be premature. However, the Secretary of State knows of our concerns about downsizing, the full-time reserve, the command structure, recruitment, special branch and local control of policing. On the latter point, I am dismayed at the ideas in the criminal justice review about so-called restorative justice and the so-called community, safety and policing partnership. Both will offer too many opportunities for paramilitaries to supplant the police and legal systems. No responsible person should countenance such dangerous suggestions.
  There is a simple reason for my belief that discussion of structural matters is premature. The provisions on policing in the agreement were predicated on change. The relevant section begins by stating that the participants believe that
  the Agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing.
  That phrase occurs in the Government's amendment. The participants to the agreement note that it offers
  a unique opportunity to bring about a new dispensation.
  The policing provisions in the report are predicated on that new dispensation. But has it arrived? At present, the answer is simply and clearly no. Should the changes be rushed through in advance of that new dispensation? Again, the answer is obviously no, especially as, because of the refusal of all the paramilitaries—particularly the republican movement—to respond even after everything that has been done for them, there is little confidence in the community that the new beginning, or the new dispensation, will ever happen.
  Much of Patten is not controversial. The uncontroversial aspects are largely drawn from the RUC's fundamental review of policing, started in 1994. It contemplated three security situations. In the first, there was a high level of terrorist activity, with bombings, shootings, intimidation and public disorder. The review stated that the response to that should be a high level of policing, supported by the Army.
  The second scenario was one of intimidation, so-called punishment beatings and racketeering, with terrorist organisations remaining fully armed. In that case, the fundamental review envisaged a high level of policing, but with the Army withdrawn.
  In the third scenario, terrorist organisations were dismantled and community relations had improved. In that case, a different form of high-quality, effective policing was needed. Only in that scenario would the fundamental review have introduced significant downsizing and a change in policing strategies.
  With the ceasefires and the agreement, we moved from scenario one to scenario two. With the refusal of the paramilitaries to disarm and disband, we have obviously not moved to the third scenario. If anything, with the increased activity of dissident republicans, we are in danger of slipping backwards.
  It is wrong to press on with security-sensitive changes. In his January statement, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that changes would be made in some cases only
  1216
  when the security situation permitted. We must ask him to hold back those changes and, indeed, the controversial aspects of Patten, until after the disarmament and disbandment of terrorist organisations that was envisaged by the agreement and on which the fundamental review was predicated.
  There is an easy solution for the symbolic issues that have exercised us so much this evening. We should follow one of the general thrusts of the agreement, on which both Patten and the criminal justice review concur. We should devolve responsibility for the police and the courts to the Northern Ireland Assembly and let them settle it: who better to decide those matters than the people who will be affected by them.
  4.24 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; notes that the award was made by Her Majesty in recognition of the service and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which must never be forgotten; reiterates its commitment to maintaining an effective police service in Northern Ireland capable of protecting the public and maintaining law and order; and reaffirms the objective in the Good Friday Agreement of creating a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.'.
  I shall come to the name of the RUC and symbolic matters later in my remarks. In the meantime, I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on devolution. I look forward to the time when responsibility for policing and criminal justice matters is properly devolved, as we envisaged under the legislation. That will, of course, mean an early reactivation of the Executive and the institutions in Northern Ireland. I look forward to agreement being reached on that as quickly as possible.
  I welcome this opportunity to debate reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a whole—not simply of its name and its symbols, although I readily acknowledge their importance. The debate is not between those who are pro or anti the police, or between those who are for or against the RUC. All of us are for the most effective and representative police service that can be created in Northern Ireland.
  During 30 years of conflict, the RUC has been both the bulwark against and one of the principal victims of a sustained and brutal terrorist campaign. That position has led—unfairly—to its being identified more with one side of the community than the other. That, of course, is exaggerated by some for political reasons—I readily acknowledge that—but it does not remove the essential truth that the RUC tends to be associated more with one side of the community.
  Policing in Northern Ireland arouses great passions. I have heard—often at first hand—the resentment that some of the proposed changes to the RUC have sparked. I understand the pain that proposed changes to the name and symbols have caused—especially among the families, friends and colleagues of murdered RUC officers. The name, rightly, is a source of great pride to the RUC family. I respect that.

  1217
  We all owe the RUC a deep debt of gratitude. We shall never forget the 302 officers who were killed and the thousands more who were injured. Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I whole-heartedly support the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty to the RUC. It is a richly deserved recognition of the courage and dedication of the RUC; I include regulars, reserves, full-time, part-time and, indeed, support staff. It is a fitting memorial to those who gave their lives.
  In January, when I announced my decisions on reform of the RUC, I was mindful of that history and of the concerns that change provoked. Then, as today, I was clear on one point: the reforms are—emphatically—not an attack on the RUC. They are not about disbanding the RUC. Those who advocated that course lost the argument. The proposed changes do not result from the RUC's failure—quite the opposite.
  The RUC has provided a first-class service to the people of Northern Ireland and it continues to do so. That has not changed. However, the world, and Northern Ireland, are changing dramatically, and for the better. We must prepare and equip the RUC to embrace that change for the future.
  An opportunity has been offered to create an outstanding modern police service—to allow the police to develop in a way they themselves have wanted to do for years. They will be able to make the transition from an anti-terrorist security force—as they inevitably had to be—to a community-focused and community-based police service working in partnership with the whole community. The new peace in Northern Ireland gives us the opportunity to allow the RUC to do what they wanted and still want to do—I stress that point.
  Indeed, many of the central planks of the Patten report—for example, on the size and structure of the police service, on police training, on civilianisation, on community partnership policing, on normalisation of policing, including the amalgamation of special branch and crime branch, the phasing out of the RUC reserve and other proposals that Patten has made—flow directly from the Chief Constable's own fundamental review conducted three years ago. As Les Rodgers, the chairman of the Police Federation, pointed out, Patten was
  the adoption in the main of the Fundamental Review.
  Even so, when I was appointed to this job a month after Patten delivered his report, I decided to re-examine all the commission's recommendations and to reassess them on their merits. I subjected each to the same test: did it contribute to our aim of securing a modern, effective police service for Northern Ireland capable of attracting widespread community support? In a number of cases, I found it necessary to modify or alter the way in which a recommendation was to be implemented.
  I have decided, for example, that the new police oath should not be taken by serving officers, who have already been attested as constables. That would suggest that, in some sense, the RUC, was being disbanded. It is not; that view has been rejected. I also decided that the district policing partnerships should initially be purely consultative bodies and that there should be safeguards to exclude anyone convicted at any time of a terrorist offence from being appointed as an independent member of a district policing partnership. In other matters too, I have gone to every length to ensure the operational independence of the Chief Constable and his officers from political interference.
  1218
  I am determined to advance these and other changes in a sensitive and balanced way. However, we cannot allow emotions to blind us to the pressing need for change—change that the RUC itself has already acknowledged is necessary and desirable.
  The hard reality of policing in Northern Ireland and the reason policing was remitted to the Patten commission in the first place is this: although 80 per cent. of Protestants are content with policing, fewer than 50 per cent. of Catholics are satisfied, as reported by Patten; the annual community attitudes survey—leave aside what the Patten commission established—shows that although 70 per cent. of Protestants think that police treat the two communities equally, only 30 per cent. of Catholics agree. I am not endorsing that statement; I am not saying that it is true. However, we cannot dispute the perception that exists among the Catholic population.
  In the same survey, three quarters of Catholics and 60 per cent. of Protestants hold the view that there are too few Catholics in the police service. The reason for that is that 88 per cent. of the police are from the Protestant side of the community. That is in spite of the great efforts made by the Chief Constable and by the police authority to achieve a more balanced service.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State must keep in mind the fact that, when Roman Catholics join the police, they often lose their right to go home. Many Roman Catholics in my constituency are members of the police, and they cannot go to their own homes; their homes are under threat. Sometimes their parents have to meet them outside Northern Ireland. Surely that is why we do not have the input into the present RUC that we did in the old days when about a third of the force were Roman Catholics.
  Mr. Mandelson: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. 1 know that IRA intimidation—in the past, including murder—has been a significant factor in preventing Catholics from joining the RUC. Such intimidation is absolutely disgraceful, and it must stop.
  I say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that intimidation is not the only factor. Peer pressure, lack of community support, lack of identification with the RUC, fear of loss of family contact and an expectation among Catholics of having to submerge their nationalist identity should they go into the RUC—I am not suggesting that they will; that is the fear and apprehension among Catholics—are factors and they have all played a part. It is those factors that we are addressing and trying to remedy in the changes that we advocate today.
  Northern Ireland is a divided society and the issue of policing throws those divides into sharp relief. To be fully effective a police force must be representative of the community that it serves and it must also command widespread support across that community. That is why I was persuaded that serious and radical changes were needed to redress the extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the RUC. That included changing the name.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Secretary of State aware that, between 1918 and 1921, the Royal Irish Constabulary comprised 70 per cent. Catholic constables? However, exactly the same process of

  1219
  demonisation, propaganda and murder—more than 400 officers were murdered—did not solve the problem. Does he not accept that the change of name, or even an increase in Catholic representation in the ranks of the RUC or the new police force, will not solve the problem?
  Mr. Mandelson: I believe that the changes taken in the round will address the problem and, over time, they will bring about the change in perceptions and attitudes among Catholics and nationalists which is necessary if we are to promote and secure the applications, the recruitment and the different composition of the RUC that everyone agrees is necessary. Nobody disputes the need for that. Where there are divided opinions is over the type of measures—the form the measures will take—and how quickly they should be applied to redress the religious imbalance that exists.
  Mr. Tom King: As the Secretary of State rightly said, the whole House would wish to see a police service in Northern Ireland that commanded the widest possible cross-community support. In his recommendations on the Patten report, he has put forward some pretty fundamental changes that will obviously cause concern. What confidence does he have that the leaders of the nationalists—and republican elements as well—will be prepared to endorse and support people joining a new police force under the structure that he has proposed?
  Mr. Mandelson: I believe that my confidence matches my hopefulness that that endorsement and those calls will come from leaders of the nationalist community. I have been encouraged by what leaders of the nationalist community have said and, if one takes what they have said at face value, I believe that, if we faithfully implement what we have said we will do, that support and encouragement will be forthcoming. I certainly hope that it will be.
  Mr. John Hume: In reply to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King),there is no doubt that we want a police service that has the loyalty of the entire community and membership from all sections of our community. As I have often said, the basis of law and order in our society is fundamentally agreement on how it is governed; where that is absent, the police, no matter who they are, will be seen as being on one side or the other. They are therefore victims of politicians' failure to reach the agreement that we have now reached, including the implementation of the Pattern report, will provide the basis for a police service that has the membership of all—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but this is an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Mandelson: It was a very welcome intervention, and an important one because the hon. Gentleman has remarked that if, in implementing the Good Friday agreement, we implement what the Patten commission has recommended, the police service will, in his opinion, command the loyalty of all sections of the community. That is a welcome and important statement, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it.
  Mr. Frank Field: May not the House be missing the point when we say that of course we look for
  1220
  support for the changes from nationalist and republican groups in Northern Ireland? Nationalist and republican positions are totally legitimate, but is not the real problem that a very small minority have guns, and they have an influence out of all proportion to their number? The changes might well have the overwhelming support of nationalist and republican opinion in Northern Ireland, but the crucial group with whom we have to deal are those with guns who terrorise.
  Mr. Mandelson: My right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, but it is no more necessary or desirable to have our views about policing and the proposed changes dictated to us by those who hold guns than it is to have the future of our devolved and political institutions, and their establishment in Northern Ireland, dictated to us by those who hold guns. I do not want any blackmail on any decision or policy to be perpetrated by people who insist on carrying arms as members of paramilitary organisations.
  Mr. Michael Howard rose—
  Mr. Mandelson: I am afraid that I must press on, but I shall be glad to give way later in my remarks.
  Mr. Howard: My intervention is on this point.
  Mr. Mandelson: I defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and I am grateful. On the point about the name, is he aware that the police force that is singled out for most praise in the Patten report, and which operates in not entirely dissimilar circumstances to the RUC, is the Royal Canadian mounted police? Is he aware that the Canadian high commission has confirmed that there are no plans to change the name of the Royal Canadian mounted police?
  Mr. Mandelson: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is rather dramatically missing the point. If the Royal Canadian mounted police were operating in a society as divided as that in Northern Ireland and the policing itself were as controversial and evoked such passion and anger as the policing in Northern Ireland, they would be addressing the nature, the form and even the name of the force, just as we are doing with the RUC.
  That brings me to the issue of the name. The Patten report concluded that
  the name of the RUC…had become politicised—one side of the community effectively claiming ownership of the name and that the use of those words…must inevitably go some way in inhibiting wholehearted participation in policing.
  To be absolutely frank, my starting point was to challenge that view. I recognised the pain that changing the name would cause and questioned whether it was really necessary and indispensable in attracting a balance in recruits. After a lot of thought and genuine consideration, I concluded that it was necessary.
  I concluded, however, that small but significant changes to Patten's recommendations were called for. For example, the new name—Police Service of Northern Ireland—has been modified and will be adopted only

  1221
  when the first new recruits enter through the new recruitment procedures in autumn 2001. Nothing that we are doing is overhasty or accelerated. Logically, the new badge of the police service will be introduced at the same time, but I have not decided what the badge should be, and I am not convinced that it need be entirely free of association with both traditions.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. I acknowledge that many Unionists and many in the police family vigorously oppose the change and I have experienced at first hand their continuing opposition. Equally, however, it is very clear to me from all that I have heard from nationalist political, church and community leaders that, in their opinion, a change in the name is essential if the changes to the police are to succeed in changing not only people's perceptions of the police, but their attitudes to volunteering and recruitment to the police service in the future.
  That view is not confined to nationalists. Editorials in the Belfast Telegraph on 19 and 20 January at the time of the announcement of the Government's decision recognised that while the sacrifices of the RUC should be remembered in a new policing era,
  sadly, there would have been little chance of progress towards a broadly acceptable force without some change in the name and symbols, which were a legacy of the past.
  The Belfast Telegraph got it right.
  The Belfast Newsletter said that Unionists
  would do well to take their cue
  from the police who would
  take all the changes in its professional stride.
  I want to make it absolutely clear: changing the name has nothing to do with the issue of sovereignty or Northern Ireland's constitutional status. Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the wish of a majority of its people. No matter how much smoke some people create, the name change is about effective and representative policing—nothing more and nothing else.
  Some have accepted, reluctantly, that the change of name is necessary and have expressed the hope—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been conducted properly until now, and there is no point in hon. Members making seated interventions.
  Mr. Mandelson: Some have accepted the necessity of the change, including some in the Unionist community and, indeed, some in the party of those hon. Gentlemen who are calling out to me. I know that because I have met members of the party who reluctantly accept that the change is necessary. They have also expressed the hope that it will be possible to find a way of commemorating the title and the service of the RUC in some form, not least in honour of those who have lost their lives. I strongly share that view, and I can announce that I have set work in train to identify appropriate ways of honouring the name of the RUC in perpetuity by associating it with suitable and agreed initiatives.
  Ultimately, what the police do, how representative they are, and how they are trained and equipped matter more than what they are called. The Government are
  1222
  determined to ensure that the police have the necessary resources and capabilities to protect the community and uphold law and order.
  We must tackle the live, day-to-day issues: the all-too-frequent paramilitary attacks that inflict terrible suffering and mock the principles of fairness and justice; the arson attacks; and all the other crimes of violence that wreck lives, wreck homes and deny whole communities their basic right to live free of fear.
  There are parts of Northern Ireland in which paramilitaries think not just that they are above the law but that they are the law. The paramilitaries' grip on such communities needs to be tackled and broken, but to achieve that, the police service must have the confidence of law-abiding people in such communities. The police service needs to be more representative of them if confidence is to be built up, if the police service is to command the confidence that it needs in all parts of the community, and if it is to do its job effectively and successfully and take on and defeat the paramilitaries' grip. That is our objective.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State slips his tongue across descriptions of certain parts of the community in Northern Ireland. He describes them at one moment as nationalists, at another as republican and at another as Catholics. I am not sure that those descriptions necessarily all represent the same interest or objectives. Is it one of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions to have sections of the police force who wish to bring Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom? Is that in his mind?
  Mr. Mandelson: I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be asking whether there will be a separately constituted section of the new police service of those who are dedicated to persuading their fellow citizens to leave the United Kingdom. I must say that that would be an odd way of constituting a police service. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Chief Constable is responsible for the recruitment of members of the police service and were he to make such a proposal to me, not only would I be extremely surprised but I would have no reluctance in questioning and rejecting the proposal.
  The motion also calls for the implementation of controversial recommendations to await a new dispensation. I want to take up what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has said about that, because he made some important points and I take them seriously. I ask the House to think for a moment about the right hon. Gentleman's argument and what he has said. The British and Irish Governments, and all the Northern Ireland political parties, have to play a part in creating a new social and political climate in Northern Ireland. Reform of the RUC is not a consequence or a by-product of the climate that we want to create in Northern Ireland. Reforming the police is crucial to creating that climate and building up the new dispensation that the Good Friday agreement foreshadowed and which all of us who support the agreement want to usher into Northern Ireland as a new era of inclusive government and unbreakable peace. I say to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that I believe that reform of the police has an important contribution to make towards creating that climate and ushering in that era, which all of us want to see in Northern Ireland.

  1223
  None the less, I can reassure the House that there will be no question of rushing forward with change in the absence of a stable security environment. From recent events, including the explosion today, it is clear that we still have some way to go before we have created that entirely stable security environment.
  A number of recommendations depend absolutely on the Chief Constable's assessment of the level of threat—recommendations such as phasing out the full-time reserve; amalgamation of special branch and CID; progress towards an unarmed police service; and changes to police buildings and vehicles.
  Those changes will be carried forward only on the Chief Constable's advice, and on the basis of his assessment of the security threat in Northern Ireland. That is what Patten said, what I have accepted, and what the Government's policy is—taking account of the security situation and, against that background, the capability of the police as an organisation to absorb the huge changes that are set out.
  Some changes can occur quickly. The Chief Constable has begun the process, and we will see the start of down-sizing and the creation of new district command units this November. That is his choice and his decision. Other changes will take longer. For example, Patten envisages the composition of the service changing over a period of 10 years.
  In conclusion, I want to say this about the RUC: in its planning and preparation for change, the RUC has shown the same sort of typical professionalism as it has shown throughout 30 years of dealing with terrorism. I have met those responsible in the RUC—the change management team and the assistant Chief Constable, who has an excellent team. I am thoroughly impressed by the conscientiousness of those responsible and by their dedication to the task of bringing about the change, some aspects of which they may not like, but all of which, as professionals, they will embrace, if that is the will of Parliament once the legislation is enacted. They deserve our gratitude and our unfailing support. They certainly have mine.
  I want also to pay tribute to the role of the Army in supporting the police in the fight against terrorism. The Army, too, has shown enormous courage in helping the police to uphold law and order and in protecting all sides of the community in Northern Ireland from violence. It, too, has paid a very heavy price, with the loss of 655 soldiers since 1969. In that context, let me join the right hon. Member for Upper Bann in expressing my sympathy to the families and colleagues of the soldiers lost in the tragic accident on the River Foyle last night.
  Those who care about the police must resist all temptation to project self-interested political arguments on to the RUC. [Interruption]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Mandelson: Whether in support or condemnation, that does the police absolutely no service and it makes their job harder, as the chairman of the Police Federation in Northern Ireland reiterated this morning, when he asked for politicians and the political parties in Northern Ireland to debate all the changes, but not to seek to link those
  1224
  changes and the future of the police in Northern Ireland to the interests of one section or one political party alone in Northern Ireland.
  Therefore to Unionists I say: "You are not being asked to relinquish your pride in or your sense of community with the RUC. You are being asked to share it with others in the whole community in Northern Ireland."
  To nationalists, I say: "You must meet Unionists halfway. We can create a service of which nationalists can feel a proper sense of ownership, but it is up to you to embrace it and to join the new police service when it is created."
  Our success in achieving a new balance and a new composition will be the litmus test of the reforms. This is an ambitious programme of change. The RUC has risen positively to the challenge, and we must follow the example that it has set in Northern Ireland. We have a framework and the commitment to create a modern, effective police service, drawing support from and putting down roots in all parts of the community. That is the prize. Now we must grasp it.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: The House is grateful to the Ulster Unionist party which, by using its precious single Supply day to propose a motion on policing in Northern Ireland, has given us an opportunity to comment on what should be contained in the legislation that the Secretary of State will introduce shortly.
  I want again to underline the Conservative Opposition's respect for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. During the past 30 years, the RUC has constituted the thin green line in the Province between the rule of law and anarchy. We owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude on the mainland, in the Province and in the Republic.
  Members of the RUC have paid the most horrendous price: 302 officers have been murdered, more than 10,000 have been cruelly maimed or wounded while trying to protect innocent life. In the international context, the police force in Northern Ireland is regarded throughout the world as the best counter-terrorism force ever. Those who recently visited the Balkans, especially Kosovo, know of the excellent work that RUC officers are carrying out there under equally difficult circumstances.
  The whole House was therefore delighted when Her Majesty chose to recognise the RUC by awarding it the George Cross. Never has an award been more deserved. Conservative Members fully understand why the Secretary of State will not be with us for Question Time next Wednesday. He will rightly be with Her Majesty in the Province for the exciting occasion of the awarding of the George Cross. We are delighted that that will happen.
  I shall repeat the comments that I made when the Patten proposals were published in September. We believe that they offer an interesting and helpful basis for policing in the Province when there is no longer a terrorist threat. However, the terrorist threat remains. In the past 24 hours, a serious explosion has occurred at the Eglinton barracks. A couple of weeks ago, a car was intercepted on the road between Hillsborough and Lisburn, and 500 lb of home-made explosives were found. In the run-up to St. Patrick's day, those explosives would have been used in a dangerous and evil way. 1 hope that no hon. Member believes that there is no continuing terrorist threat from republican and so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Hopefully, it comes only from splinter groups.

  1225
  We believe that it would be decidedly premature to introduce some of Patten's security-sensitive recommendations. There are 175 recommendations in all, the great majority of which are straightforward, sensible and necessary. Many were mirrored in the Chief Constable's earlier review and we believe that they should be implemented forthwith. We can get those out of the way immediately.
  We have reservations about the proposed name change. Worse than that, I do not believe that we can support the Government when the legislation comes before the House. We see no need to change the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) were good enough to point out, this is an extremely sensitive issue, particularly for those who have lost loved ones serving in that force. Therefore, any change of name must not be taken lightly by the House.
  The biggest reason that we are given for a name change is that that change would increase confidence in the nationalist-republican community. I rebut that by quoting the Police Authority survey, which was concluded only in October last year—no more than six months ago. It says that a name change
  will cause major offence in the Protestant community but will not lead to significant improvements in support for the Police among Catholics.
  I endorse that. In other words, a recommendation to scrap the name of the RUC would create considerable grief and pain in one community without achieving much consequent gain in the other. That has been further endorsed today by the survey in the Belfast Telegraph, which shows that 61 per cent. of the Catholic community not only have confidence in the police, but do not believe that there is any need to change the name. I hope that, at this late hour, the Secretary of State will think again. To give him advance notice, I must tell him that, if he does not, we shall seek to remove that provision from the legislation and will press the matter to a Division, both here and in the other place, until we can persuade him to do so.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: One of the specious arguments in favour of changing the name is that people speak of the RUC as "our police force". Perhaps those who use that argument have forgotten that that is an Ulster form of expression. We speak about "our Government" in this place, although no one from either the Labour or the Conservative side stands for election there. Surely that expression acknowledges that the RUC is part of our society and that we are part of it.
  Mr. MacKay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to refer to them as "our Government". On a more serious note, he and I agree, as does the Secretary of State, that the police force in Northern Ireland—the Royal Ulster Constabulary—is for everybody in Northern Ireland, with the possible exception of the men of violence in both communities who want to break up the process and are rightly scared of the RUC because of the success that it has had.
  I want to discuss the security-sensitive measures. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State. He rightly identified most of them, but 1 put it to him that they should not be incorporated in the legislation at this
  1226
  stage. Only when he, the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, believe that there is no longer a terrorist threat—in other words, when Belfast is the same as Bracknell—should they be considered by the House for implementation.
  Mr. Mandelson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should introduce two Bills? Is he suggesting that we should introduce a Bill to pave the way for half the changes, and a subsequent Bill that would be necessary for us to provide for the restructuring of the force and other matters—for instance, those relating to the Special Branch? Is he saying that none of those matters should be dealt with until the security situation changes, at which point we would introduce a further Bill? Is he really suggesting that?
  Mr. MacKay: I am delighted that I have made myself so clear. I believe that, in the legislation that the Secretary of State will present to the House, we should implement only the Patten recommendations that are not security-sensitive. I would then leave the remaining recommendations until there is a lasting peace. The Secretary of State knows full well that, sadly, we are a long, long way from no longer facing a terrorist threat.
  There is no doubt that there is still a terrorist threat. It would be extremely foolish for us to put on the statute book recommendations from Patten that are security-sensitive, would potentially harm the police force, and, more important, would lead to a loss of life here, in the Province and in the republic.
  Mr. Mandelson: Let me put on record my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for changing the formulation of what he said in his earlier contribution, when he referred to delaying the implementation. Delaying the implementation is one thing; providing for changes in legislation is quite another. It is possible to provide for something in legislation without immediately implementing it. The implementation can wait for the security situation to permit it, and for the Chief Constable to give the appropriate advice, but I think that it would be very odd not to take the powers and not to make the provision at all.
  Mr. MacKay: Obviously, we do not believe that there should be implementation until it is safe for that to happen. Equally, we do not want the recommendations to be implemented merely by affirmative order, by a nod and a wink from the Secretary of State, or by the imposition of political pressure on anyone else. They should be implemented in fresh legislation on the Floor of the House, with us, the Members of this House, making a final decision.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is not the pity of this the fact that the Government have not learned the lesson of the folly of releasing large numbers of terrorists into the community, which everyone with any common sense knows was a dreadful mistake, and the fact that they now insist on going the whole hog on the Patten proposals when, although everyone acknowledges that much in Patten is extremely good and should be implemented immediately, the name change is a change too far?
  Mr. MacKay: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I shall return to the subject of

  1227
  decommissioning and terrorist prisoner releases shortly; first, however, I want to regain the Secretary of State's attention, because he is anxious for me to make absolutely clear where we stand on security-sensitive legislation.
  What we object to most is the setting up of new district policing partnership boards, which will include locally elected representatives. That means that Sinn Fein councillors and so-called loyalist councillors, with their clear links to the paramilitaries, will be able to sit on the boards—and, under legislation from this House, the area police commander will be legally obliged to give them security-sensitive information. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that that would be entirely inappropriate, and would put lives at risk.
  The idea that any of those elected councillors can sit on any police board at any time while their paramilitary associates—with whom, according to the Prime Minister, they are inextricably linked—have failed to decommission one gun or one ounce of Semtex is outrageous. We would not in any circumstances wish to support the setting up of such boards, even by means of an arrangement that could be implemented later if the peace lasted. We would want fresh legislation. We would want the House to look very carefully to satisfy itself that that has happened.
  Mr. Mandelson: I have already made it clear that they are not being set up as executive boards. I have already decided that they will be set up as consultative forums.
  As for the right hon. Gentleman's other point about people from Sinn Fein, notably, being part of the forums, he must realise that, by then, it must be assumed—I certainly hope that he assumes it—that Sinn Fein will be part of the government of Northern Ireland, let alone the district partnerships. He should know from his knowledge of Northern Ireland that many of those partnership boards exist already in relation to a host of other policies and activities throughout Northern Ireland, almost all of which include representatives of Sinn Fein sitting down with representatives of other political parties. There is nothing new in all this.
  Mr. MacKay: There is something entirely new about recommendations under Patten—which we are still not clear whether the Secretary of State will implement—actually saying that the area police commander, under statute, must give security-sensitive information to the police board, when those people sitting on the police board are inextricably linked, so do we have an absolute guarantee that the board has been scrapped for good?
  Mr. Mandelson: I repeat: I have already announced my decision not to accept that aspect of the Patten commission's recommendations. They are not being set up as district executive boards. The district commanders will not have the relationship that the right hon. Gentleman has described to the district partnerships, which will be consultative forums that will not deal with security-sensitive matters and material.
  Mr. MacKay: I think that we have to pursue the Secretary of State just a little further, so that we are absolutely clear. He has said that the boards are not going to be set up. They are not going to be set up for good—
  1228
  is that right? There is not going to be something in the legislation that says that the boards can be implemented once certain criteria have been reached. That is what we want to know. Police boards are forgotten now—is that correct?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that there are many questions to which the right hon. Gentleman wants an answer, but he must give the House a speech. We cannot have a situation where the Secretary of State keeps intervening because there are others who wish to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. MacKay: With the greatest respect, let me say that the Secretary of State has been making certain suggestions, which need to be clarified. I would like to have those clarified now. I want a guarantee from him that there will be no police boards in the legislation. [Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of Sate say that he has said that. Okay. We have now accepted that there will be no police boards and no mention of police boards in the legislation. I am delighted. I hope that I am right.
  Mr. Stephen Day: Is the Secretary of State sure about that?
  Mr. MacKay: I share the view of my hon. Friend: I am doubtful.
  I move to the other security-sensitive areas that I wish the Secretary of State to exclude from the legislation.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I will in one moment. It is important that I put this on the record.
  We believe that there should be no changes to special branch until there is no longer a terrorist threat and that that should not be in the legislation. We believe that the cutting of the strength of the force should not be in the legislation, but, instead, should be left, as it always has been, to the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, after judging the terrorist threat. That seems right and proper. We believe that there should be no tampering with the full-time reserve until, again, there is a lasting peace and no longer a terrorist threat. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
  Mr. Maginnis: I do not want to delay the right hon. Gentleman, but he might reasonably inquire what body will replace the Police Authority for Northern Ireland because I think that he is being misled by the Secretary of State in terms of both the police board and district policing partnership boards.
  Furthermore, the Secretary of State has told us that he would not implement the district policing partnership boards until such times as the criminal justice commission reported, but it has now recommended the implementation of those district policing partnership boards. Is he giving us a firm commitment, then, that he will not take the recommendations of the commission?
  Mr. MacKay: Although I cannot answer for the Secretary of State, I should like briefly to observe that the

  1229
  hon. Gentleman—who has more experience of security and police matters than any other hon. Member—and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who is nodding, share the concerns felt by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends about the Secretary of State's comments. I also note that the hon. Gentleman will be replying to the debate for the Ulster Unionist party and can undoubtedly raise those issues with the Minister of State—who is nodding and listening very carefully to the debate. I am sure that the Minister will address those issues in full.
  The only other matter that I wish to discuss is Catholic recruitment to the force. I entirely endorse almost everything that the Secretary of State said on that matter. I hope that no hon. Member is not deeply disappointed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary does not more evenly reflect the composition of the two communities. It is patently clear that it would be in the best interests of the Province if the force did so. Those aspects of the Patten report that encourage recruitment of young Catholic men and women to the force are to be commended.
  It is, however, very important that we ask why there are so few of them in the force, despite—as the Secretary of State rightly acknowledged—the tremendous work that the Chief Constable and many of his officers have done to try to increase that recruitment. The simple truth is that those men and women have been intimidated within their own communities, not merely by the IRA and other republican terrorist groups, but by peer pressure and the community at large. I call upon the leaders of that community—the politicians, churchmen, local councillors and others who have influence—now to encourage their best men and women to come forward and join the police force. I believe that that is absolutely essential.
  My colleagues and I shall be voting for the motion because we believe that the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his co-signatories to the motion are absolutely correct. We wish to see a successful, broadly based police force in Northern Ireland. Again, I call on the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to listen very carefully to this debate and the concerns.
  I should much prefer for us not to have votes when we consider the legislation. However, we shall have votes if Ministers proceed with the name change without any compromise and if we are not satisfied with their sort-of assurances—which we found far from clear—on the security-sensitive recommendations that we believe should not be in the legislation.
  We await the Bill's publication and First Reading with great interest. Meanwhile, we shall enthusiastically support today's motion.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I once again remind the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I should like to put this debate and the motion into the original context—a programme for peace and for ensuring the stability of that peace. The legislation will not be an isolated consequence of the Patten commission, but part of a very complex series of agreements made by the pro-agreement parties,
  1230
  including the Ulster Unionist party, on how to achieve that peace, permanent stability and good government in Northern Ireland. It is part of a mosaic that included the recognition of the status of Northern Ireland, the equality agenda, the amendment of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, the police review, the criminal systems review and decommissioning. Those issues are all intertwined, interlinked and interdependent.
  Through the Good Friday agreement, we are trying to resolve a 300-year conflict that has been so bitterly and tragically expressed in the past three decades in our society in Northern Ireland. Opposition Members regularly speak with apparent expertise on what the nationalist community thinks and wants. Not one of them lives in that community and very few of them even visit it when they come to Northern Ireland. Let us not pretend that Opposition Members know about the nationalist community of Northern Ireland and what it desires.
  Whether we like it or not, there is a perception that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is the police force of one section of the community. One of the primary reasons for that perception is the antics of the Ulster Unionist party over many years. They must take part of the blame for that partisan attitude to the police service in Northern Ireland. Many statistics have been quoted at us today, but one of the most vital is the percentage of participation by the nationalist community in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There are many reasons for that, some of which have been articulated this afternoon, including intimidation and the conflict to which I have referred. However, the situation was similar even before 1969–70. That was not the result of intimidation or violence. The problem was the ethos pertaining at the time, which is carried through to this day.
  The motion is flawed, because it calls for the postponement of the implementation of the Patten report
  until the "new dispensation" on which it was predicated has truly arrived.
  The new dispensation cannot be arrived at until the report is implemented, along with all the other issues. We are trying to create an environment in which the community fully respects, fully participates in, fully supports and fully endorses its Northern Ireland police service or the police service of Northern Ireland. The Government amendment catches that aspiration well. It talks of creating
  a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.
  Opposition Members should support that, not the motion. The motion is exclusive and is not part of the Good Friday agreement, which the Opposition say they will support and have supported.
  Our attitude to the Patten commission and its recommendations is based on our experiences in our community. The Patten commission did not recommend everything that we asked for, but the report is a reasonable presentation that should have the support of the entire community. Law, order and justice have always been the kernel of the conflict in Ireland over many years. We are trying to resolve that conflict once and for all. We are here to engage not in party political point scoring, but in a genuine attempt to establish a police service of a kind that we have not had since the creation of the Northern Ireland state, whose status has now been recognised, subject to the will of the people. That is what we are about.

  1231
  I regret that the centre of the attack, as it were, on the Patten commission is centred on the name and emblem change. That was one aspect of the commission's remit. Symbols are important, because they are symbolic of what they represent; but the Patten commission did what it was told to do. Why was it told to do that? It was because the terms of reference were directly translated from the Good Friday agreement. The second paragraph on page 23, annex 1, specifically requires the commission to address the problem of partisan symbols within the RUC, and that is what it has done.
  It annoys me and the community from which I come that by supporting changing the name of the RUC we are somehow denigrating, trampling on or ignoring the sacrifices of RUC men and women and their families over the years. Are memories so fragile in the community that the continuance of a name is needed for sacrifices to be remembered? That is nonsensical. Two world wars were fought and men and women died. Their regiments were renamed or disbanded and nobody advanced the argument that the war dead had been dishonoured.
  There is an attempt to create—
  Mr. Trimble:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McGrady: have only 10 minutes and I am not giving way to anybody.
  There is an attempt to make a political football of the problem that we have in the context of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the new Northern Ireland police service. We are striving for change and a new beginning, and the Patten commission is the way in which, by and large, we think that a change in security can be achieved.
  Much was made by those on the Opposition Benches, particularly by the official Opposition, about holding everything in abeyance until the security situation is dealt with and clarified. They have missed the point entirely. It cannot be dealt with and violence cannot be finally eradicated until we have the new police service supported and endorsed.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: That is the real position.
  Mr. McGrady: I am talking about practical politics on the ground. Until the entire community feels confident to embrace, join and be active in that service, it will not be reflected in that service. Peace and stability in Northern Ireland depend entirely on the commitment that is given to the service by both communities.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McGrady: I have said already that I am not giving way. There are only a few minutes left to me.
  I ask the House, including the Opposition, despite what they have said, to support the endorsement of a new police service that is capable of being supported by the entire community in Northern Ireland. Otherwise, we have failed. We have failed with the Good Friday agreement and we have failed to map out the way that we are going forward. I could argue—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order
  5.34pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Let us remember that the debate is part of the on—going peace process, wherein the Patten report has always played an important role, as we have just heard. The group Friends of the Good Friday Agreement has arranged a conference for the weekend after next, where once again the Patten report will form a key part of the discussions. Yesterday, a student section of that body was launched by the National Union of Students executive member, Sophie Bolt. Again, some conversation was focused on the Patten report.
  We need to remember that many people are watching to see what happens to the police force in Northern Ireland. They are judging the actions that are taken and the promises that are made to create an inclusive police force by the degree to which the Patten report is implemented.
  The fundamental police role is to uphold law and order. We have heard a lot about that and, in general, the RUC has performed that role admirably in the most extreme conditions. Thanks to the sacrifices of RUC officers and their families, law and order generally has not broken down in large parts of the Northern Irish community. I believe that the George Cross is a fitting tribute for that sacrifice, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties can agree on that.
  However, we cannot get away from the fact that a substantial section of the population has had a more strained relationship with the RUC, despite the committed hard work of the overwhelming majority of officers, regardless of their religious denomination. The reasons for mistrust vary, but some tensions are the direct result of the troubles and of matters that have been set out already. As a result, some communities have turned to paramilitaries to enforce some form of trumped-up justice. In some areas, the paramilitary beatings have almost become part of the process of keeping order, although—most evidently—they are not part of the process of law.
  The Patten report offers a way to stop that ethos. The Good Friday agreement stated clearly that the participants in the agreement
  believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.
  That is the crucial point in this debate. We must all acknowledge what has been mentioned already—that the polls show that a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland do not regard the RUC as their police force. The Good Friday agreement was signed up to by almost everyone here today. The words that I quoted outline the challenge that the Patten commission sought to answer.
  The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the report as a basis for progress. Changes in the police service had to take place, and they had to be by evolution rather than revolution. In that context, I believe that there can be no question of abandment. We must retain the vast range of talents and expertise in the RUC. We must also recognise—as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) did—that the RUC is a world authority on some aspects of policing, as a result of the difficult circumstances in which it has operated.
  Many of the recommendations in the report are not controversial and I am sure that they will be agreed without much dissent. I was especially pleased at the

  1233
  emphasis that it placed on human rights. That emphasis is key to the well-being of a democratic society, and to the healing process that has to take place in Northern Irish politics, where human rights have not always been respected.
  For a police force, limiting a person's human rights limits the degree to which that person can trust the force. For example, arrest, stop-and-search operations and house searches can lead to very bad community relations if they are carried out in an unsympathetic way. It takes only a small amount of distrust to render effective policing virtually impossible. A police force can barely operate without community support unfortunately, that is what has happened in some parts of Northern Ireland.
  We therefore especially welcome the inclusion of a commitment to uphold human rights in the police service oath. In themselves, those words will not solve the problem, but they make a lot of sense in terms of the direction in which we must go. The Patten reports suggests that the RUC can enhance its human rights practice further. We certainly welcome the report's recommendations, and hope that they will be implemented.
  The Liberal Democrat submission emphasised the need for the police to work with the local community. Successful forces tend to be accessible to ordinary people. Given the security situation in Northern Ireland, that has not always been easy there, but a speedy implementation of the Patten report's proposals should help.
  Even so, a start can be made now on building and developing trust. As always, there has been much discussion today about culture, ethos and—most important—symbols. All hon. Members, regardless of party, must recognise the sensitivities involved. I recently visited the Province with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). Our conversation with police representatives underlined the real worries that the proposed changes have caused. There is a real feeling that they are disrespectful to the many people who have suffered loss or injury during the many years that the RUC has been in the front line. These feelings must be taken seriously. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke with great authority and insight.
  On balance, this is a matter not of principle but of judgment about how to balance the need for reform with the need to respect those sensitivities. Given that the police are there to serve not one or even two sections of the community but all the citizens of Northern Ireland, it is necessary to put that sense of ownership very high on the agenda for reform. Patten believes that the name is a real sticking point and that the historic symbolism, cherished by so many, also causes a proportion of nationalists and republicans to regard the RUC as someone else's police force or one connected with factions rather than individuals. It is a hard call. In my view, the changes must take account of the memory of those who have sacrificed so much, but it would be a far bigger tragedy if, after all that sacrifice, the RUC continued to be seen as a partisan force on account of its name.
  This is not the time to discuss what the new name should be. As I have said in the past, I have concerns about the proposal: I still think that the name "Northern Ireland Police Department" would be better. However, it sounds as though we will have an extensive debate when
  1234
  the legislation comes before the House, and I hope that we can then fully air the concerns that have been expressed to us.
  The Liberal Democrats also welcome other aspects of the report, such as video recording in custody suites, an effective complaints procedure, formalisation of co- operation with the Garda, and new and extensive information technology and telecommunication systems for local police stations. Those proposals can all make a practical difference to the effectiveness of the force.
  We are, however, concerned about sections of the report, primarily recommendation 121. In attempting to address the imbalance between the number of Protestants and Catholics in the police, it says:
  An equal number of Protestants and Catholics should be drawn from the pool of qualified candidates.
  We fully support the need for equalisation, but the imbalance will not be fixed by demanding that an equal number be recruited from qualified pool of candidates. That would simply tackle the symptoms and not the cause, because quotas ignore the fundamental issue. There are so few Catholics in the RUC, not because Catholics have been rejected by the RUC but because the RUC has lost the confidence of so many Catholics who might otherwise apply. There is little incentive to apply. Added to peer pressure, community pressure and, sometimes, paramilitary pressure, that makes it much more difficult for a Catholic to apply to be in the police.
  I met Relatives for Justice this afternoon. The group represents people with grievances about the injury or death of members of their family that they allege are a result of state force activity. Having listened to them, I am sure that there is a case to answer. However we may deal with their claims, these people are genuinely aggrieved that their concerns have not been raised sufficiently in the past. In that context, it is not surprising that there continues to be an imbalance.
  We need affirmative action. I think that community leaders such as politicians, Church leaders and teachers could actively promote applications to join the police. There are no quick fixes here, and we must not deceive ourselves by thinking that quotas will solve the problem. The goes for the recruitment of other unrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minorities.
  The point about district councils and boards led to an interesting mini-Northern Ireland Question Time between the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). However, this did not clarify the situation, and I would be grateful if we could have an unequivocal explanation of what is going to happen. I was reassured that safeguards exist to prevent district councils from being infiltrated by paramilitary involvement, but we have to be careful, because I think the right hon. Member for Bracknell was right to raise the issue.
  My final point is about downsizing. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that we cannot start downsizing when we do not know where we will end up. If there is downsizing, however, we must ensure that retirement packages and severance payments are very generous. That would not cost the taxpayer a lot, and it would be fair to those who have given so much.
  Northern Ireland needs the implementation of the Patten report's proposals. The Minister of State has assured me several times that the Government will press

  1235
  ahead with reform of the RUC, and I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State shares the timetable Today's motion begins with the George Cross, so I shall end on it. Wherever we stand on the details, all hon. Members should honour the supreme sacrifice made by so many. We are for ever in the debt of those who lost their lives
  5.45pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Except for the reference to the award of the George Cross, I, as a humble Back Bencher, cannot accept the motion. I am pleased that we are holding the debate, however, although I regret that we do not have five or six hours in which to allow more hon. Members to participate.
  As we approach the second anniversary of the Good Friday agreement—a few days hence—I should like to be told that the Government seek, in harmonious co-operation with the Irish Government, to do all in their power to implement all of the agreement. I am confident in the Government.
  The Government's amendment rightly pays tribute to the courageous service and sacrifices of the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, emphasising that that must never be forgotten. I pay my own tribute to those brave men and women.
  The amendment also demonstrates, plainly and uncompromisingly—as the Secretary of State did in his speech—the Government's determination to press on with reform of policing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to the early introduction of a Bill—the Police Reform (Northern Ireland) Bill would be my suggested title. I agree with the view voiced at the Ulster Unionist council meeting by Michael McGimpsey that change is not something to be frightened of as long as it is constructive change that enhances the ability of the police to carry out their duties. Mr. McGimpsey has said many other things, but I certainly support him in that.
  I do not altogether agree with Mr. McGimpsey's criticism of the Patten report's "scant and fleeting" acknowledgement of the sacrifice made by RUC officers and their families. Some 302 officers have been killed, and almost 9,000 injured during the troubles. I hope that Mr. McGimpsey will not criticise me for my scant reference to the remarkable bravery and stoicism of those people, but I have only 10 minutes.
  In Kosovo, recently I met constituents of some of the Northern Irish Members on the Opposition Benches. I met officers of the 60-strong Royal Ulster Constabulary contingent. They have no objection to my mentioning their names, and they are Superintendent John Middlemiss, Inspector Tim Hanley, Inspector John Adams and a remarkable young officer, Albert McWilliams of N division in Tyrone, who is based in a village that suffered a dreadful massacre. That village policeman is working with Canadian KFOR and doing a remarkable job.
  I was so impressed by those officers that I wrote to their Chief Constable when I returned home, and I await his reply. I am happy to quote a letter of my own in the Chamber—I think that this is the first time that I have done so. I wrote:
  We discussed the duties they had to perform in that conflict-ridden province and I came away deeply impressed by their professionalism. More importantly, I was told by their chief,
  1236
  whom I believe Ronnie Flanagan had met,
  that the sixty-strong RUC contingent was among his best group of international police officers.
  Similar compliments were paid to your officers by senior UN officials, army officers and representatives of NGOs. The RUC can be justly proud of these fellow-officers.
  Incidentally, the chief of the United Nations international police force said, "Do your best, Norman, to get some more RUC officers over here." I would not volunteer.
  Within 36 hours of my return home from Kosovo I visited the RUC station in Musgrave street which covers the markets area. A couple of hon. Gentlemen know about my visit. I met Sergeant Jones and his colleagues who are remarkably positively establishing community policing, such as has been referred to. I need hardly say that that is a Nationalist area. Rightly, they have won a community policing award.
  In the few minutes left to me, I had better say something about the Patten report. I have read the UUP's response to the Patten report and I reject the criticism that it is riddled with deep flaws. However, I share the concerns over the creation of district police partnership boards and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State's emphatic assurance this afternoon. I would not want to see such boards introduced into Strathclyde police. There should be consultation between all groups at local level with local police officers. No one can object to that development in a new police force.
  Many of the recommendations are utterly non-controversial. I am not very happy with recommendation 154 on page 121 under the heading "Culture, Ethos and Symbols". Patten and his colleagues recommend:
  The colour of the current police uniform should be retained.
  I disagree. If we are to have comprehensive reform of all aspects of policing, why not, with the recommended design of a new, more practical uniform, substitute green for navy blue? As psychologists would say, the population stereotype and the colour we all recognise vis-a-vis police officers is navy blue. Let us switch colour.
  This morning, after the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) met the women from the Relatives for Justice group, they told me that they were not at all happy with the Patten report but they were willing to accept it. They accept what Monsignor Raymond Murray, their convener, said in a letter to all hon. Members:
  The Patten Report on Policing is seen as absolutely the most essential element of addressing the need for change. The confidence of our membership in the Good Friday Agreement was won by the possibility that policing would be properly and thoroughly addressed.
  I agree with those sentiments, but that is a most formidable challenge.
  Last night's editorial in the Belfast Telegraph began with the sentence:
  In the seemingly endless search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland, it is clearly essential to know what core attitudes in the two communities are to be reconciled.
  The last sentence of the editorial reads:
  There is no escaping the unwelcome conclusion that changing the name and symbols of the RUC, and producing a police force sufficiently supported by a large majority, will be a crucial issue.

  1237
  I agree. This Government and this House of Commons with the people and police officers of Northern Ireland have to be equal to that immense challenge. It would be much, much better if these issues could be resolved in the Northern Ireland Assembly based on genuine consultation with all communities in the Province. I should love to see the early reinstitution of the Assembly.
  However, if the House of Commons has to introduce that legislation, let us do so constructively—based on genuine consultations with the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. I support the Patten recommendations and look forward to early legislation implementing some if not all of them.
  5.55pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to those who have given their lives in the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland—especially members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their constabulary reserve and members of the Army.
  After 22 months, the Belfast agreement was suspended, but it seems to be a partial suspension, because we are talking about something that is part of the agreement—as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) emphasised. If the agreement is suspended, why are we talking about parts of it? [Interruption.] I listened to the Secretary of State and I do not think he knows whether he is suspended or it is suspended. There is no clear message about which parts we can or cannot talk about and legislate for.
  The hon. Member for South Down made it clear that nationalists want complete implementation of the agreement before they can give their full support to the suggestions on the police. That will be clear when we read Hansard. That represents what the nationalists are saying. Of course, IRA-Sinn Fein is not in agreement with the Patten report, as we hear from its spokesmen. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is happy about Patten. Everything in the SDLP's document on policing has been accepted by Patten—so the hon. Gentleman should be extremely pleased.
  When the Patten commission was set up, many tributes were paid to it—by Unionists and nationalists. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), said:
  The RUC have nothing to fear from the Patten inquiry.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said:
  If we are going to have a sensible look at the RUC then I believe that Chris Patten's appointment is progress.
  Some progress-as we see today. On 4 June 1998, the hon. Gentleman said that he was
  very happy with the make up of the Patten commission. I think practically we could not have hoped for anything better.
  When there was opposition in the Province, those who dared to say anything about the Patten commission were hammered down. However, when the report was issued, the Ulster Unionist council passed a resolution stating that it was
  deeply flawed and objectionable to the greater number of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.
  1238
  The resolution referred to the need to
  bring forward proposals for future policing structures and arrangements, including means of encouraging widespread community support for those arrangements.
  The council felt that the Patten commission was supposed to do that, but had not done what it was asked to do.
  Mr. Patten himself does not keep silent on these issues. He said:
  What on earth did these people think they were going to get when they signed up to the Belfast agreement?
  I don't say this provocatively, but it really does seem to me that we were given a very clear agenda, and I'm surprised that those who gave us that agenda did not understand what the consequences would be.
  The leader of the Unionist party said:
  Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the RUC and the men who have served in it.
  I agree with him on that. He continued
  but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves.
  I agree with that too. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has asked the Secretary of State:
  Does he realise that despite his euphemistic language, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—the leader of the Ulster Unionist party—is absolutely right to say that what has been announced today degrades, demeans and denigrates an honourable force … —[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, C. 852.}
  Today we see the consequences of the commission. It is a serious matter that runs right to the heart of the debate. Those on the Front Benches have argued whether terrorists can have influence in the new set-up. The argument should have been not about the partnerships but about the main police board that is proposed. That is because the main board will have 10 members who will be appointed by the d'Hondt principle from those who are in the Executive.
  The Secretary of State is working and sweating to get IRA-Sinn Fein back into the Executive. That is his purpose; he tells us that it must get back in because the Executive must be all inclusive. If the board is all inclusive, it will not be consultative—it will be the top body. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that he would not want such a fixture in his country; we do not want it in our country, either.
  It is all right saying that if a person has been convicted he cannot serve on a partnership, but what about those people against whom the charges have been put in abeyance because of the agreement? We do not know whether they are guilty or not guilty, but there are many unsolved cases of murder, maiming, wounding and bombing. I do not think that anyone who has any link with paramilitaries or with destructive elements should be on the board. We will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland—they cannot be solved—in the way that has been suggested.
  Of course, there is real feeling about the name. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down does not realise that. I have heard strong discussions in the House about holding on to the names of regiments in the British Army, so such issues do not concern Northern Ireland only. People feel very strongly about them. They feel that their friends or families who have served in the regiments are slighted if the names are changed. How much more do people feel about the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

  1239
  I was in the House when a spokesman told us that, if we could get rid of the Ulster Special Constabulary, all would be well. I remember standing on my own in the House to defend the Ulster Special Constabulary. They got rid of it, but did that make any difference? I pay my tribute to the Ulster Special Constabulary, which not for the money-its members were paid a mere pittance—kept the IRA at bay for years. The historian of the IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, acknowledges that in his book on the history of the IRA.
  We then came to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I heard people say in the House that, if we got rid of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the troubles would all be settled and all would be well. We were to get a new regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, but that is now to be seriously cut in size. Its headquarters are in Ballymena in my constituency and I got word the other day that a very big pruning will take place under proposals that have been made.
  All those things happened, but there is no end to the problem. We must be prepared to deal with those who are prepared to take up arms and to kill, maim and bomb. Such people come from both religious sections of the community; there are terrorists and evil men in the Protestant—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6.5pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to be called because I want to place on the record—mercifully, briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the reasons why I cannot support the Government in the Division Lobby this evening. It would be grotesque for me to move on to that stage of the debate without underscoring the messages that the House is putting out this evening to those who served in the police force in Northern Ireland and who were murdered. Similarly, it would be grotesque not to underscore our thanks to them, their families and their children. Although that point may not take up most of our time this evening, I would not want anybody anywhere in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, to think that because we do not keep stressing it, it is not as much a part of our thinking today as it is at other times in the parliamentary process when we are not debating Northern Ireland.
  The House can also be careless about its own Members. I proudly represent an English constituency, and I do not want my contribution to go by without my drawing attention to the additional pressures faced by hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. Sometimes we think that our task is difficult, but it is nowhere near as difficult as theirs. I would not want us, in the casual and careless way in which we sometimes approach issues here, to fail to underscore how mindful we are of their personal bravery and commitment.
  Similarly, I do not want the debate to go by without saying something about those on the Treasury Bench who look after Northern Ireland affairs. It is not always easy being a Minister, but the Northern Ireland brief is the most difficult one. The pressures, worries and uncertainties and
  1240
  the horrors that happen when politics breaks down and people resort to violence to settle disputes are terrible. I was going to say that our Northern Ireland Ministers are on the front line; I hope that they are not, but they have to face risks that the rest of us do not have to face. That makes it even more difficult to disagree with them on an issue such as this.
  I shall explain how the question of the Patten report breaks down for me. It is not that there are not many recommendations in the report about which we can all agree. I want to concentrate on those proposals which if they were implemented quickly would be seen as a victory by one side and a defeat by the other. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), better than anybody who has spoken so far-I do not knock anybody else because we are all making our own points-has encapsulated the political strategy that the House and the country have to face.
  The House and the country are dividing, and I fear will continue to divide, along the following lines: there are those who believe that if further concessions are made, we can bring people who have been used to using methods of murder into the political process; there are, on the other hand, those who believe that that process has been tried and that for us to continue to engage them in the political process requires concessions from them. While we have not made much of it tonight, it is a debate, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was saying as the time limit came down on him, about what happens to guns and bombs and the people who use them.
  In my short speech and in, sadly, not supporting the Government in the Division Lobby tonight, I wish to say that increasingly people will want to see more progress on the handing over and decommissioning of the methods and weapons of murder before further concessions are made. So while one of course looks for progress in implementing those parts of a settlement that neither side thinks is a victory or a defeat, there are proposals in the Patten report that one side will crow about and that will cause the other side even greater anguish.
  We cannot realistically move further in the peace process that all of us want until we make more progress, or one might say at least some progress, on the decommissioning of arms. So, although this debate is not about the decommissioning of arms, it is about that for me. Although the debate is not about paying tribute to those people who have been murdered on both sides in Northern Ireland, it is about that for me. Although the debate is not about being mindful of the families on both sides of the divide who will never be able to recover from the murder that the terrorists on both sides have inflicted on Northern Ireland, I merely wish to put down a marker to my Government, whom on many fronts I am so proud to support, that while 1 may be expressing a minority view among Members, those views I believe are not a minority view among our supporters in the country.
  6.12pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The motion in the name of the Ulster Unionist party refers to the award of the George Cross. One of the main reasons, if not the reason, for the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty is the sacrifice of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Many officers have paid the ultimate price. In the past 30 years, 302 have been murdered and many more have been seriously injured and disabled.

  1241
  Two of those 302 officers were members of my family circle. Constable Samuel Donaldson was murdered in 1970 on 12 August in Crossmaglen. He was the first officer to be blown up by the IRA in the conflict that has become known as the troubles. Another constable, Robert Miller, died with Samuel that day. Samuel's brother, Chief Inspector Alexander Donaldson was murdered by the IRA at Newry when it mortared the police station and killed nine police officers, two of them women.
  So my family knows something of the sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Today, I salute their memory. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that the name of the RUC and our desire to retain that name was rather a tenuous link to our desire to mark the sacrifice, but I have to say to him that I do not believe that he is right. I must respectfully disagree with him.
  I quote to the hon. Gentleman and the House the words of Rosemary Graham, who attended a public meeting in Portadown hosted by Chris Patten as he considered the issues relating to policing. Rosemary Graham, who is the widow of constable John Graham, murdered by the IRA in Lurgan, said to Mr. Patten:
  The RUC must remain intact so that my husband John did not die in vain. My husband was a family man. He was not political, he was not sectarian, he was not a Catholic and he was not a Protestant. but a Christian. He was very fair, he treated people equally and I was proud to be his wife. I put the words Royal Ulster Constabulary on my husband's gravestone. That is what he died for, and I do not want to see that changed.
  I leave the words of Rosemary Graham with the hon. Member for South Down. I hope that he will understand the depth of feeling that exists within Northern Ireland on this matter. Rosemary gave me her permission to use her words in the debate today, because she wants the House to understand what the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary" means to her and to many others in Northern Ireland.
  We have heard much talk about the controversy surrounding the name, yet as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of my party, mentioned earlier in the debate, that is not borne out by the attitude surveys carried out in Northern Ireland. Just last evening, yet another of those surveys was published in the Belfast Telegraph. Of the people from the Roman Catholic tradition who were questioned, only 31 per cent. found the name of the RUC to be offensive; 61 per cent. were not offended by the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. One wonders why there is such a great necessity to scrap the proud name of the RUC. In his contribution today, the Secretary of State made much of the professionalism of the force. His comments have been echoed by other hon. Members on the Government side.
  It is easy to talk about the professionalism of the RUC, and when that is set against the propaganda—particularly of the republican movement, which has sought to undermine the RUC—many people, especially those living in Great Britain, ask why there is a need for reform. But when people hear the propaganda set alongside the Government's desire to reform the RUC, they conclude that there must be something to the propaganda, and no longer hear the comments about professionalism.
  One must conclude that many of the changes proposed in the Patten report are not about organisational aspects, although there are proposals that deal with organisation. There are proposed changes, particularly those that relate to symbols, that are motivated simply by a desire to appease a small but vocal minority in our community.
  1242
  We hear about the need to recruit more Roman Catholics to the RUC. As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs who was a party to the report referred to by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I want to see more Roman Catholics serving in the RUC.
  It is worth noting that since the IRA ceasefire, the number of applicants to the RUC from the Roman Catholic tradition has doubled. Does that not indicate some linkage between the violence and intimidation of the IRA, and the shortfall in recruits from the Roman Catholic community? I do not buy into the argument that the name and the symbols are a barrier to Roman Catholics joining the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  We hear also of bias by the RUC. Bias in favour of whom? If one visits the Maze prison in my constituency—if there are any prisoners left—one would observe as many loyalist prisoners for terrorist offences as republican prisoners. The RUC's conviction rate against loyalist paramilitarism is much higher than that against republican paramilitarism.
  How can one say that the RUC has been biased? It has pursued terrorism from whichever quarter it has come. It has defended and protected the whole community, regardless of politics or creed. It is an insult to the RUC's professional integrity that the Government intend to pursue many changes that have nothing to do with professional policing but are politically motivated.
  Sinn Fein-IRA has conducted a carefully orchestrated campaign against the RUC. Hon. Members should consider the disgraceful treatment of Monsignor Denis Faul and his colleagues who participated in a police liaison committee meeting in County Tyrone and the intimidatory tactics of the republican movement on that occasion. Hon. Members should consider the republican movement's bullying tactics against headmasters in schools when it seeks to prevent the RUC from teaching schoolchildren about road safety and the dangers of drugs. Hon. Members should consider the republican movement's intimidation of football teams that are drawn against the RUC team.
  What does that tell us about the republican movement and its idea of justice and policing? Recently, we have seen much of the justice that it metes out. I could go through a catalogue of incidents that involve the republican movement and its idea of justice. It is the justice of the baseball bat, the bullet through the kneecap or, worse still, the justice of the kangaroo court: no judge, no jury and execution by a bullet through the back of the head. That is the republican movement's idea of justice, yet so much of the Patten report is designed to appease it. That is why so much of the Patten report is unacceptable to people in Northern Ireland.
  Patten was given the task of securing a police service that could command widespread community support. He failed to achieve that. The Patten proposals do not have the support of many people in Northern Ireland. I therefore urge the Government to think again, to listen to the voice of the many in Northern Ireland, not to scrap the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and not to dishonour the proud memory of the men and women who gave their all to defend us all throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will draw back from implementing the many unacceptable aspects of the Patten report.
  6.23pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I should like to raise six points in the 10 minutes available. First, I want to consider the question that was implicit in many speeches: is there a problem with the RUC as it stands? Many statistics have been cited, and we could continue for a long time. However, I shall cite only two.
  Fewer than 5 per cent. of Catholics have a lot of confidence in the police force. The level of Protestant confidence is seven times higher. Only 19 per cent. of working class Catholics believe that equal treatment was shown to both communities. The figure for working class Protestants was four times higher.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the fact that in Northern Ireland it is common to speak about "our police". The Patten report notes that that form of expression was heard from Protestant but not Catholic contributors. A problem therefore exists, and we are sticking our heads in the sand if we do not acknowledge that.
  Secondly, will the Patten changes help to build Catholic, nationalist confidence in the police? We need look no further than the statistic that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) cited. He said that 45 per cent. of the Catholic community claimed that the Patten changes would increase their confidence. I appreciate his point that a further 41 per cent. said that it would neither increase nor decrease their confidence. However, if the confidence of half the Catholic population is increased, that constitutes a substantial improvement.
  Mr. Trimble: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is possible that the 45 per cent. are contained in the 59 per cent. who in the same survey said that they found the police acceptable.
  Dr. Palmer: I accept that point. However, we are seeking ways to increase acceptance and, under my first point, some people who feel that certain aspects are acceptable still lack confidence in the force.
  Thirdly, would the changes reduce support for the police among the Protestant community, as some speakers have implied? Speaking as politicians, we have to say that people will blame us for the change, not the police. They will not support the police force less because we have decided, in the national interest, to change its name. The net effect will be that the Catholic side of the community will strengthen its support, but the Protestant side will not lose confidence in their police.
  Fourthly, are there major substantive objections? It has been noticeable throughout the debate that criticism has focused overwhelmingly on the symbolic issues. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has stressed the need to implement the whole Good Friday agreement and I believe that the overwhelming majority of Members here would agree with that. However, his position has to take account of the fact that recently his party has twice become a substantial obstacle to that fulfilment. Because of the importance of decommissioning, we can, with some difficulty, understand why the party imposed an interim deadline for commencement. It is comprehensible, if unfortunate in effect, that that ultimatum was given. Making participation in the Executive dependent on the name of the police force is a position that most people in Britain find totally incomprehensible. Frankly, no simpler
  1244
  proof could be given that the RUC is seen not only by nationalists, but by Unionists, as a Unionist police force. That problem needs to be addressed.
  Fifthly, hon. Members may ask, "Does mainland British opinion matter? Why should it? Surely this is purely an internal matter for people in Northern Ireland. It is their police force and their security." Okay, there may be a day when Ulster is separate from Britain as an independent Province or part of Ireland or part of some larger European unit—who knows? However, as long as Ulster is part of this country, the opinion of the rest of the country matters. To those who claim loyalty to the Union, I say that it will survive only on the basis of mutual consent. I suggest to hon. Members that the opinion of people on this side of the Irish sea will continue to matter.
  Finally, it is vital that we do not give any excuse to paramilitaries to withhold the commitment to peace on the ground that we have not played our part in the agreement. I understand that some hon. Members may not be entirely happy with every aspect of the report, but it was commissioned and it cannot be wished away. We must not flinch at implementing it—not as a concession to paramilitaries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested, but as part of our commitment to fairness in Northern Ireland and to peace in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  6.29pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is to be congratulated on the analytical and perceptive content of his contribution. My regret is that the same qualities were not brought to bear on the remit given to Mr. Patten and his colleagues when they set about the business of preparing the report. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the terms of reference of the Patten commission were to introduce a series of proposals designed to secure widespread support so that the police force it produced could be seen as an integral part of the community as a whole. The commission has signally failed to achieve that.
  I do not believe that a single Member representing the pro-Union community endorses these reports. Indeed, a nationwide petition that is particularly relevant to the subject of today's debate—the name and insignia of the RUC—attracted 400,000 signatures, 300,000 from Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine how, in such circumstances, the Government can conceivably say that these proposals are designed to bring about widespread support.
  The vast majority of Unionists believe that the core of the Patten proposals are a number of political concessions and articles of appeasement to organised terror, wrapped up in technical and administrative reforms to which agreement is largely present, and which were the subject of the chief constable's on-going report from 1994. The changes in the name and insignia were clearly political, rather than policing, imperatives.
  The reasons given for such changes have no real foundation in fact. Indeed, the opening paragraphs of the report, particularly those on page 13, suggest that the degree of overall support for the RUC was higher than the support afforded to any continental police force. Indeed, it was comparable with the support given in other parts of the United Kingdom, when we take into account the specific and peculiar difficulties faced by a police force in Northern Ireland.

  1245
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann was, I think, right to emphasise the fact that the polls showed a much higher percentage of support among the Catholic community for local policing, in relation to the overall perception of the acceptability of the RUC in the Province. Therein, I believe, lies the real issue. The reality, as exhibited by the support for the local police, is that there was no real objection to the RUC. The perception was the product not of the reality but of enforced propaganda and intimidation—especially in urban areas—imposed by the control of the paramilitaries in ghetto areas in the urbanised regions of Northern Ireland.
  Criticism of the RUC is largely directed at its role as an anti-terrorist or counter-terrorist organisation. I know of no great criticism of the RUC's discharge of its normal functions in dealing with rape, depravity involving children, theft, burglary and fraud: little valid criticism is made of the RUC in that context. The criticism relates to its direction of its activities towards the political terrorism of paramilitary organisations and their associated criminal gangsterism.
  The same could be extrapolated in regard to criticism directed at the judiciary. Its discharge of its civil functions—from commerce to personal injury and domestic problems—attracts no criticism. Why, then, do its members suddenly become monsters of bias and discrimination when they exercise their judicial function in relation to terrorism?
  I believe that the efforts of Government politically to appease and to placate terrorism have effectively increased lawlessness in Northern Ireland. They have broken down the moral infrastructure and civil obedience of a region of the United Kingdom that once had the best record in the UK for observation of the laws, and for lack of crime.
  Let me perhaps put in context what it is to live in Northern Ireland under the policies of the Government. How can we expect ordinary people to respect law enforcement agencies or the judiciary, when a Government apply policies that enable, for example, the sniper gang in South Armagh, Carragher and McGinn, who were sentenced after due process to 490 years, to wave to relatives, including, incidentally, those of Lance Bombardier Restorick, and say, "We will be out in 15 months"? How can the murderers of the cross-community chums Allen and Trainor be given a life sentence, yet sneer and snigger at the mother of Damien Trainor because they will be out in a year?
  I have personal experience of that because I received a letter bomb, as did Mr. Trimble and Mr. Donaldson—I should give their constituencies.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should, indeed, give them.
  Mr. McCartney: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In haste, I perhaps overlooked custom, but I beg their pardon: the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I all received a bomb. Those responsible were apprehended. After due process, they were convicted and given five years. They were out in six weeks. One of them, Gerry McQuoid, was one of those apprehended a month ago with a 500 lb bomb.
  1246
  The policies applicable to such people, who are fighting turf wars over drugs and racketeering, are demoralising the police force, which sees those people, whom it has risked life and limb to secure, released back into society. If we destroy the morale of those in the force and take away their pride, if they feel that they are not valued in the community, ultimately that policy will be the harbinger of an even greater terror, and an obstruction and obstacle to the peace that we all desire.
  6.37pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Secretary of State wound up his contribution very cleverly, by suggesting by inference that this is a party political issue, not an issue to do specifically with the men and women who serve as officers of the RUC. It is not a party political issue. It has been brought forward by my party perhaps only in so far as it is the only party in the House from Northern Ireland that has consistently supported the police through thick and thin, as they have carried out their difficult and dangerous duties over the past 30 years.
  We are talking about the future of men and women: not some amorphous mass of people, but the individual men and women who will be called upon to serve in the RUC in years to come, just as tens of thousands have served in it from 1921 until today.
  It is important that, if we expect those men and women, who are our police men and women now, and will be in future, to deliver the sort of service that they have delivered, and if we call on them to make the sort of sacrifice that they have made in years past, they must have confidence in the guardians of the democratic system that they are setting out to protect. They must have confidence in the Government, whichever party is in power. They must also understand that they will not be sold short in the face of violence and intimidation from sections of our society, from whichever tradition those small groups emerge.
  The reality is that police are the victims of criticism simply because they have been in the front line. More than anyone else, they have had to carry the fight right to the terrorists' door and face them down the barrel of a rifle. They have had to put at risk their lives, and those of their comrades and families, to maintain some form of democracy in Northern Ireland, to stop us from falling into chaos.
  In so doing, their greatest enemies have been those who would create chaos. Hence, we have heard story after story and words such as collusion being thrown around. However, if the force that receives more intelligence than could be imagined—intelligence about those who commit those acts of terrorism—had used that intelligence illegally or in concert with other illegal organisations, it would have brought about the slaughter of hundreds of people, particularly of those who now sit in democratic chambers and call themselves Sinn Fein, which we know is still inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. That would have been the outcome, but that did not happen.
  It did not happen because of the men and women who have served in the RUC. It did not happen because of those men and women's diligence and honour in performing their duties. Compare that with the 2,200 people—including more than 300 police men and women—who were murdered by the IRA. Consider the

  1247
  thousand, again including some police officers, who were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The fact is that 3,600 people have been killed in Northern Ireland, the majority of them by illegal organisations. If we had had anything but the most disciplined police service, the death toll would have been two, three or four times that. The Secretary of State is nodding.
  I do not want to spend all day—I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not have all day—again addressing the issue of the name change, which is a serious matter. However, by changing the name of the RUC, we shall be disbanding the RUC.
  Today, the Secretary of State again let the cat out of the bag. In this debate, he has talked constructively—in a manner that was meant to be kindly and considerate—about means of commemorating the RUC. One commemorates not something that is alive, but something that has disappeared. That would happen while the IRA retains not only its name, but its structure, constitution and desire to bring about change by the use of violence. If that happens, we shall be diminishing those men and women who have served, suffered and died. We shall also be presenting to those who succeed them a legacy that says, "You cannot trust the democratic system that you have been commissioned to defend."
  In the short time left, I should deal with the proposed structural changes to the RUC. Many of them would be welcome and would make the RUC more efficient under more normal circumstances. Already, the Chief Constable has proposals to devolve more authority to commanders at local level. That takes time. The Secretary of State should make it clear, as he has not done so far, that, in restructuring for normal police duties, he will ensure that there are sufficient police men and women to prevent society from being put at risk. Society is at risk from a mafia ethos derived from 30 years of terrorism. The void of the present lower level of terrorism, which we all welcome, is being filled by evil men and organisations.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve will be retained, and strengthened if necessary, during the period of transition, if such a period can be undertaken. I hope that he will ensure that, while the core structure of the RUC is being dealt with, those men and women, who have played an important role, will be given some reassurance. The men and women of the RUC Reserve are the least assured about their future. Common sense suggests that the anxiety that I come across almost daily should be removed.
  My party wants to ensure that the RUC is able to recruit properly so that it reflects the make-up of our society. That will not be done by removing a name or by any gesture made to the IRA—or to the republican movement, as it likes to call itself. There are families in my constituency who would not let their sons and daughters join the Garda Siochana, let alone the RUC, irrespective of its name. There will be no continuing tradition if we undermine the confidence of the police or diminish the level of entry to it. All those issues must be addressed.
  It is a question not simply of gestures, but of the confidence of society when people go home, close their door and begin to consider where their protection of life, limb and property rests. It is not in some hall filled with
  1248
  pseudo politicians that such true feelings are made. It is when people are talking privately that they tell us the name that they respect and the name that they will call upon when they are in trouble. Let us remember that these are men and women and not an amorphous bunch in green uniforms. They are men and women who run huge risks and who should be honoured by the House. The implications of the Patten report should be more carefully considered than they have been heretofore.
  6.50pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I have listened carefully to the debate, and there have been some extremely thoughtful contributions. Much of what has been said I can agree with: the Government, too, recognise the huge contribution of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We will never forget the sacrifices of the 302 officers who have been killed or the thousands who were injured.
  As the Minister with direct departmental responsibility for policing in Northern Ireland, I have met many officers at all levels within the RUC. I have been impressed by the professionalism, commitment and bravery of serving officers as they carry out their duties in the most difficult of circumstances.
  Two examples stand out. First, the role played by the RUC in protecting the nationalist community in and around Garvaghy road highlights all too graphically the balanced way in which it discharges its duties. It should not be forgotten that the last RUC officer to be killed was a Catholic, who was brutally murdered by so-called loyalist paramilitaries as he stood on duty at Drumcree in 1998.
  The second example is the role played by RUC officers in a peacekeeping role in Kosovo, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). These officers have received plaudits from all quarters for the work that they are doing. They are held up as an example to the other police forces serving in Kosovo. Their professionalism and competencies are of the highest standard, and those who criticise the RUC should bear in mind these two examples and many others when they parade their prejudices against the RUC in their own communities in Northern Ireland and further afield. Those who do so show a lack of the tolerance and reconciliation that are the cornerstones of the Good Friday agreement.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government have welcomed in a fulsome way the award of the George Cross as a fitting tribute to the RUC and all that it has done over the past 30 years. That is recognised in the motion and in the Government's amendment.
  In the time available, I shall respond to as many points as I can. First, I shall clear up a misunderstanding that still rests in the mind of the right hon. Member for Bracknell. He raised issues about policing boards and, in his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it was clear that he had not done his homework. He had misunderstood the pith of the debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about district policing partnerships when he was referring to boards. He then moved on to the debate about the policing board itself.
  The Government will make provision in the new legislation to require each district council to create a district policing partnership. The legislation will provide

  1249
  that these partnerships have a purely consultative role. They will have no executive or expenditure functions. The legislation will create also a new policing board to replace the Police Authority. The composition of the board will depend on whether we have a devolved Administration. Much flows from the political settlement, and different concepts will have to be put in place if a political settlement does not prevail.
  Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister of State try to put my mind at rest by giving a guarantee that neither the board nor the consultative bodies will receive from the Chief Constable, if it is against his will, any security-sensitive information that will go to Sinn Fein or so-called loyalist councillors?
  Mr. Ingram: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the relationship between the Chief Constable and the political Executive. It is part of the Chief Constable's operational responsibility to decide how to deal with those bodies and how his officers communicate with them. It would be a matter for the Chief Constable and his officers to decide how to communicate any information that they have in their possession. It would be wrong for me to restrict the Chief Constable' s operational independence in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  The hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the allegation that the RUC is being disbanded. I want to refute that suggestion. The RUC is not being disbanded, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made very clear when he opened the debate.
  Those who suggested that the RUC should be disbanded lost the argument. The RUC is being renamed, as part of creating a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. I repeat that changing the name is essential if we are to make the RUC more representative of the community that it serves. That is what both the House and the RUC want to happen.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) intervened to say that the Canadian Government had no plans to change the name of the Royal Canadian mounted police. It is worth bearing in mind that policing in Canada has undergone change. I stand to be corrected on this matter, but I think that the name of the police force in Quebec was changed in 1968, and that its badge was changed in 1970. Those changes were made to take account of the cultural and traditional identities in that very divided community. Moreover, the force's literature is in French because of the divisions in that community.
  Mr. Howard: I have checked that point, and it is true that the name of the force in Quebec is in French. However, it is French for Royal Canadian mounted police.
  Mr. Ingram: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I researched the internet so that I could respond to that point, but there are much more important matters to debate. [Interruption.] The Quebec force, the provincial force dealing with local matters, is called la Sûreté de Quebec. That is not the French version of the Royal Canadian mounted police. I shall write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make sure that he is fully aware
  1250
  of the situation. [Laughter.] I see that the comedians have taken over the Opposition Front Bench, but this is a very serious matter.
  From consultations, statements and from face-to-face meetings, I know the strength of feelings of Unionists and police families on this matter. However, it is also clear from the contributions made by the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) that there is another element to the debate that is shared by people in the Catholic community.
  The survey in yesterday's evening edition of the Belfast Telegraph has already been referred to. It is open to many different interpretations, but I note that it reported that only one in eight Catholics cherished, or identified with, the name of the RUC, and that 87 per cent. of Catholics do not. That reinforces my belief that we need a service with which both sides of the community can identify.
  Rev. Martin Smyth rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question to be now put put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the orginal words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 264.

  Division No. 153]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beggs, Roy

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clappison, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Collins, Tim

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Leigh, Edward

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Flight, Howard

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fraser, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maginnis, Ken

  Garnier, Edward

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gibb, Nick

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Gray, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  1251

  Norman, Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, William

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Prior, David

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ruffley, David

  Walker, Cecil

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe and

  Syms, Robert

  Rev. Martin Smyth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coleman, Iain

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Austin, John

  Corston, Jean

  Banks, Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Benton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Dawson, Hilton

  Best, Harold

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dismore, Andrew

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ennis, Jeff

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cawsey, Ian

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grogan, John

  1252

  Hain, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morley, Elliot

  Healey, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hesford, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith

  Olner, Bill

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hope, Phil

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hume, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Roy, Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Salter, Martin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Sarwar, Mohammad

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

  Sawford, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kidney, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Singh, Marsha

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Lepper, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Levitt, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Spellar, John

  Love, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Stevenson, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McGrady, Eddie

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Stringer, Graham

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  MacShane, Denis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Timms, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Todd, Mark

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Tricked, Jon

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Merron, Gillian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tynan, Bill

  1253

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wood, Mike

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  Worthington, Tony

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Convey)

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; notes that the award was made by Her Majesty in recognition of the service and sacrifices of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which must never be forgotten; reiterates its commitment to maintaining an effective police service in Northern Ireland capable of protecting the public and maintaining law and order; and reaffirms the objective in the Good Friday Agreement of creating a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.

  LIAISON COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Stuart Bell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

  PETITION

    Pathology Services (Devon)
    7.13 pm
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I have the privilege to present a petition that has been signed by 313 people from my constituency and the surrounding area in Devon. It has been organised by members of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and the Institute of Biomedical Science. The petition raises awareness of recruitment and retention problems in the local national health service pathology services and calls for a pay review body to be set up.
    The petition states:
    The petition of the members of staff of pathology laboratories in Devon hospitals, members of MSF and IBMS declares that pathology services make a vital contribution to patient care.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to recognise the current recruitment and retention problems for the service and the urgent need to establish a pay review body as an important part of addressing these problems.
    And the petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Widows' Benefits
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for this opportunity to place on record a matter that I regard as of concern and a national disgrace. There are no niceties or courtesies about this debate. It is born out of a sense of monumental injustice and some anger. Had Ministers been responsive prior to tonight, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) would not now be sitting on the Front Bench seeking to justify the unjustifiable. The subject before the House is the failure of the Department of Social Security to ensure delivery of widows' payment to those to whom it is justly due.
  On 2 June 1999, Alan Keith Smith of Margate was working with highly flammable chemicals that caught fire. At the age of 24, he suffered horrific burns. He was admitted to Margate hospital and transferred by helicopter to a burns unit at Chelmsford in Essex. In order to satisfy car tax authorities and others, his 19-year-old wife Corrina asked for, and was given, a letter, confirming in three lines that Alan Smith was in intensive care and would remain in hospital for the foreseeable future.
  On 18 June, he died of the injuries sustained in the industrial accident. On the same day, Corrina was required to identify Alan Smith's body in the Broomfield hospital, Chelmsford. She was required to identify his body for a second time on 23 June after his remains had been transferred to the Buckland hospital, Dover, where a post mortem was carried out.
  Alan Smith's corpse was released by the Dover coroner, and he was buried on 8 July. The funeral was arranged by Messrs. Twyman and Holmes of Ramsgate. The Dover coroner provided the burial order necessary for the interment to take place. Corrina Smith borrowed £2,500 to bury her husband and to meet the out-of-pocket expenses generated by that tragic series of events.
  The inquest into the death of Alan Smith was held in east Kent on 12 October 1999. The registrar in Chelmsford received a certificate from the Dover coroner, Richard Sturt, indicating that Alan had died of multiple organ failure, septicaemia and burns. The coroner's verdict was accidental death.
  Mrs. Elfes, the Chelmsford registrar, issued a death certificate on 14 October 1999; I have a copy before me. She posted it to Corrina Smith with a covering letter. The letter states: "I have today"—14 October 1999—
  registered the death of Alan Keith Smith. Please find enclosed Certificate of Registration of Death which should be completed on the reverse side and returned to the Department of Social Security, the leaflets enclosed may be of some assistance to you.
  That was the first official document received by Corrina Smith since her husband's death.
  Corrina Smith attends Thanet college. As she is under 45, she does not qualify for a widow's pension, so she claimed a £1,000 widow's payment. That would have

  1255
  been of some modest help to her. In a pro forma note issued by the Benefits Agency at Nutwood house in Canterbury on 4 November 1999, she was told that
  because more than three months had elapsed since the death of her husband
  she would receive no money.
  Corrina Smith appealed against that decision and appeared before a tribunal. She was told again:
  Corrina Smith is not entitled to a Widow's Payment. This is because the claim was made on 26th October 1999 in respect of a death which occurred on 18th June 1999 and there is no entitlement to a widow's payment in respect of a death occurring more than 3 months before the date of the claim.
  Let us be clear about the matter. Corrina Smith received from the Essex registrar a notification of death and a death certificate dated 14 October 1999. Notwithstanding the trauma of the coroner's inquest and the distress that she had suffered, her claim was lodged within a fortnight of the receipt of those documents.
  Corrina Smith came to see me, her Member of Parliament, at my constituency advice surgery in Birchington on Friday 26 November 1999. All the facts of the case were made known by me to the chief executive of the Appeals Service in a letter dated 29 November. In that letter, I said:
  The refusal of Widow's payment is, frankly, adding appalling insult to injury. I am quite astonished that under such circumstances the claim should have been rejected at all and would urge that this be processed as a matter of urgency. While writing I have to say that I find the form sent to her by the Department of Social Security about as insensitive as any Government Document that I have ever seen. Because of my strength of feeling on this subject I am copying this letter to the Secretary of State.
  That copy was sent to the Secretary of State on the same day.
  On 23 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), responded to my letters to the Secretary of State, saying:
  On 4th August 1997 Social Security Regulations were introduced that only allow backdating of claims to a maximum of 3 months.
  I should here point out that those regulations were laid under the previous Administration, following consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee and were, as the Under-Secretary acknowledged, designed to
  reduce the complexity of the system.
  It is abundantly clear that they have also had unintended consequences.
  The Under-Secretary repeated the assertion:
  As the claim was made outside the three month limit a WP could not be paid.
  He added that he
  could appreciate that the time immediately after the death of a spouse will be traumatic and claiming may not be the main priority … However, the Benefits Agency does all that it can through its information providing services to ensure that people are aware of the benefits to which they are entitled.
  This Minister was
  sorry that you were unhappy with the standard notification of the decision advising that the Widows Payment is not payable.
  Unhappy! That is one of the most callous, uncaring and thoughtless documents that it has been my misfortune to witness in 16 years in the House of Commons.
  1256
  Given that a death certificate and the accompanying letter of advice were not sent to Mrs. Smith until after the inquest, is this young widow supposed to have second sight? Her husband had died a horrific death under the most appalling circumstances and the man who signed that letter dares to say that
  claiming benefit may not be a main priority.
  Without the necessary documentation and information, it was not even possible for her to claim.
  The Department of Social Security's "Decision Makers Guide"—which is not public reading-refers to a situation in which there has been a delay in the issue of a death certificate, but says only:
  If there has been a delay in the issue of a statutory certificate, for example if inquest proceedings are adjourned, but there is clear evidence of death such as press notices, police statements etc., and no doubt as to identity, the Secretary of State may accept such evidence.
  How is a member of the general public supposed to gain access, at a time of distress or trauma, to this arcane information?
  In his same letter, the Under-Secretary suggests:
  Where a post mortem is required and there is a delay in post mortem procedures an individual can be given an interim death certificate immediately by the Coroner's Office. This would omit the cause of death but be sufficient for benefit purposes.
  An individual can be given an interim death certificate, but there is no requirement to do so. Mrs. Smith assures me that she was handed no such document and I now understand that, in any event, where such a document is provided, no guidance note or letter of the kind offered by the registrar accompanies the document.
  On 29 February, I wrote to the Under-Secretary suggesting that he examined the rules and the legislation in the light of this case. That letter was passed to the Appeals Service. I next wrote personally to the Secretary of State, on 10 March this year. In that letter I said:
  The mere fact that a Coroner's inquest is necessary would suggest that circumstances are less than normal. A Death Certificate or even a notification of death is not issued until a later date … If regulations are to be changed at all then they should, most surely, set the clock running from the point at which notification of death is issued, rather than the actual date of death, as it is only at this point that the bereaved is given the letter of instruction to complete the document and send it to the nearest Social Security Office …
  I would urge you both to have this case specifically reconsidered and also to reconsider the manner in which the regulations apply so that others may not find themselves in a similar position …
  That letter to the Secretary of State did not receive a response of any kind until this week.
  I did, however, eventually receive another letter dated 8 March, from another Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey, who also understands
  that the time immediately after the death of a spouse will be traumatic and claiming benefit may not be a main priority …
  which would seem to indicate only that both Ministers are worked by the same civil servants pulling the same strings and using the same word processors.

  1257
  The Minister pulled out of her red box more jargon about
  seeking to heighten people's awareness of rights …
  Iam told:
  Steps have already been taken to encourage widows to make claims within the time limits …
  and that the
  Benefits Agency have recently amended the form which is issued on registration of death to make it clear that it must be sent to them quickly to avoid loss of benefit …
  That takes us back to precisely where we started because Corrina Smith was not sent
  the form which is issued on registration of death …
  until the three-month limit imposed by the Government had expired.
  The chief executive of the Appeals Service, Neil Ward, can only write on 20 March:
  The tribunal has no discretion in matters such as these and the Chairman has no alternative but to apply the law …
  For the record, this is not law at all; it is regulation imposed by the Secretary of State.
  On 28 March, threatened with referral to the European Court of Human Rights and this Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary finally replied to my letter to the Secretary of State. All she could offer was the observation:
  An appellant who remains dissatisfied with the tribunal has the right to apply for leave to appeal to a Social Security Commissioner … but only on a point of law …
  I am left with the inevitable conclusion that those charged with the political administration of the Department that is supposed most to provide for some of the most vulnerable people in this country simply do not care. From the Secretary of State to his junior Ministers, this case has received nothing but platitudes and bureaucratic self-justification.
  Let me summarise: we are talking about a young man who died in a fire, a young woman who had to borrow money to bury her husband, a coroner's inquest held months afterwards and a notification issued only after that. No information of any kind appears to have been provided to Corrina Smith which might have enabled her to make her pitiful claim within the time limit, and the system and regulation introduced by Government is being used to deny her the £1,000 to which natural justice says she is entitled. Her main concern now is to see this pernicious regulation changed so that others are not, at their most vulnerable, penalised as she has been.
  Not once has any Minister, with this full and awful story at their fingertips, acknowledged the nonsense of this system and undertaken to change it so that others do not suffer as Corrina Smith has done. Perhaps the Minister can give that undertaking tonight, so that Corrina's misery will not have been in vain.
  7.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), wrote to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 23 February and asked that his condolences be conveyed to Mrs. Smith over the death
  1258
  of her husband, a point in the letter that the hon. Gentleman chose not to quote. I should be grateful if he would also convey my condolences to Mrs. Smith.
  The hon. Gentleman has written a number of letters on this matter and I will respond to the points that he raised tonight and those in his latest letter dated 28 March. If there are any other points at issue which are not covered, I shall of course write to him again.
  Mrs. Smith's husband tragically died in June of last year. She subsequently claimed widow's benefit. She is not entitled to widow's pension because she is aged less than 45 years and there is no entitlement to widowed mother's allowance because she does not have dependent children. As the hon. Member for North Thanet acknowledged, there is no issue in that respect.
  I want to deal with the issue of the widow's payment. It is a tax-free lump sum payment of £1,000 paid to widows who are under state pension age, or whose late husband was not in receipt of retirement pension. Entitlement is based on the late husband's national insurance contribution record. Widow's payment is intended to provide immediate support to enable a widow to adjust to her changed financial circumstances and to help her deal with unexpected costs immediately following bereavement.
  There have always been time limits for claiming widows' benefit. It has always been recognised that a reasonable period ought to be allowed in which a person can make her claim, and she should not be penalised for a short period of delay. The current rule, again as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is three months. Unfortunately, Mrs. Smith's claim for widow's payment was out of time by some six weeks and was therefore disallowed. The nub of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is that it should be possible to extend the three months time limit if there are good reasons for doing so. There is no disagreement over the fact that Mrs. Smith's claim fell outside the time limit. The problem relates to the fact that the time limit is absolute.
  The history of the widow's payment is simple. It was introduced in 1988 by the previous Administration to replace a benefit known as widow's allowance. The widow's allowance had been a weekly benefit, but the widow's payment was a one-off payment of £1,000. It was never up-rated. Hon. Members may be aware that we are about to replace it with a bereavement payment, which we plan to introduce in April 2001. Bereavement payment will be a tax-free lump sum of £2,000 and will be available equally to men and women. Entitlement conditions will be the same as for widow's payment.
  At the time—widow's payment was introduced in 1988—an absolute time limit of 12 months existed for the purposes of making a claim. The back-dating was automatic. There was no need to show good cause for a delay in making a claim. Hon. Members may recall that the good cause test for late claim applied in the case of a number of other, mainly income-related, benefits. It did not apply in the case of contributory benefits such as retirement pension or widows' benefits, for which slightly more generous rules were considered appropriate because they were contributory benefits. The difference amounts to the fact that if there were no good cause for a delay in claiming one of the income-related benefits, there was no

  1259
  back-dating at all, whereas for the contributory benefits there was a 12-month time limit, whatever the reason for the delay.
  Strictly speaking, for the contributory benefits it was not really a case of back-dating. Rather, a claimant had 12 months in which to make a claim. Twelve months was the period prescribed in primary legislation. Apart from exceptional cases in which a husband's body had not been recovered or identified, or where the woman was unaware of his death, the 12-month limit was also absolute. A claim outside the absolute limit will inevitably fail.
  Then in April 1997, the previous Administration replaced the 12-month time limit with a three-month time limit. It remained an absolute rule, as it still is. There is no statutory basis for any payment to be made if, as in this case, the claim is made after the time limit has expired. There are internal rules about ex gratia payments that can be made if an individual is given clearly erroneous official information which results in loss of benefit. That was not the case. Officials in the Benefits Agency local office telephoned Mrs. Smith on 22 November to find out whether there was any possible way in which she could be helped because there had been official misinformation. They established, however, that there had been no official contact with her on the issue of the widow's payment until the out-of-time claim was received.
  I appreciate very much that in Mrs. Smith's case there were good reasons for the delay in claiming benefit. The circumstances of her husband's awful death meant that there had to be an inquest. It was not her fault that the inquest was adjourned and that, by the time that it eventually took place on 12 October, the three months had elapsed. I also appreciate the fact that at a time of traumatic loss, a widow may not be best placed emotionally or otherwise to make the business of claiming benefit the first priority. The hon. Gentleman may think that that is a cliché but I keep saying it. In the DSS we deal with many tragic cases, but I repeat that there has never been any discretion as to whether the prescribed period of three months, or the previously prescribed 12 months, could be extended. As that is an absolute rule, the reason for the delay is immaterial.
  It may be asked why we do not introduce a good cause provision, which would help to avoid such situations. The problem with the good cause rule was that it had become so overlaid with case law that decision-makers found it extremely difficult and time-consuming to wade through the decision-making process. A wholly disproportionate amount of time was taken to make such decisions, and there was still inconsistency and uncertainty about the outcome.
  The previous Administration, of whom the hon. Gentleman was an enthusiastic supporter, therefore replaced that system with a set of specified circumstances which left little room for doubt whether a claim could or could not be backdated.
  There is an argument that the three-month rule should be extended. That would not help Mrs. Smith, as it was not in place at the time of her husband's death. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of things that wherever a fence is erected, people fall on the wrong side of it.
  1260
  If we extended the claim period to six months, some people might still lose out by the odd week or two by not making timely claims.
  The information on backdating is contained in leaflets written in plain English and widely available in Benefits Agency offices, post offices, libraries and general practitioners' surgeries. To complicate the rules or introduce new rules to differentiate between different benefits would cause the re-appearance of the problems that the previous Administration sought to iron out by introducing the new rules.
  Mrs. Smith appealed against the decision that she had been given. The appeal tribunal subsequently upheld the decision, as the hon. Gentleman said. Appeal tribunals are independent of the Department. It is essential that they are independent and that they can reach decisions in individual cases by applying the law to the facts of the case. It would be entirely inappropriate for me or any other Minister to seek to interfere in the decision of a tribunal. In all the changes that we have recently introduced to the way in which appeals are handled, we have been careful to ensure that the independence of the tribunal has been safeguarded.
  Mrs. Smith's difficulty lay in the fact that some misinformation may have been given to her by her solicitor over the telephone. First, it appears that she may have been told that she could not claim widow's payment until a death certificate was to hand. If so, that information was wrong. The claim should have been made without delay, as the information leaflets for widow's benefit make clear. Had Mrs. Smith contacted the local office, she would have received confirmation of the message contained in the leaflet that any delay in claiming may affect entitlement.
  If a claim had been made on time, there may have been a delay in payment while the evidence of death was obtained, but there would have been no question of breaching time limits.
  Secondly, it appears that Mrs. Smith was not advised that she could have applied for an interim death certificate. It seems to me that on both of these points the complaint ought to be made against the solicitors.
  On the wider issues that this sad case raises, let me say that we aim to modernise the delivery of social security.
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle:We have introduced a range of changes to the ways in which decisions on social security claims and child support are made. We have made it easier for clients—
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle: No. I am in the middle of replying to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady is not replying—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
  Angela Eagle: We have made it easier for clients to get a full explanation and for us to put mistakes right more easily. We have made changes to the way in which

  1261
  appeals are handled, to cut down on the time that people have to wait for a decision. That is now down to an average of 14 weeks.
  These and the other changes that we have introduced are the first step in modernising delivery. We want to make the system more accessible for potential claimants and more straightforward for our staff. We want to provide claimants with advice to help them with their claims, but we cannot stop wrong advice being given by third parties.
  People should be advised of the need to claim benefit at the right time. Such advice is available from our offices and from other sources, such as citizens advice bureaux. Leaflets are available on how to claim each benefit. In addition, in tragic circumstances such as those in Mrs. Smith's case, the registrar issues a registration or
  1262
  notification of death certificate. That can be sent to the nearest social security office and can be accepted as a claim for benefit.
  I recognise that in Mrs. Smith's case, the delay because of the inquest may have caused the confusion. However, the information is available, and there are voluntary organisations that can help and give advice in such terrible circumstances.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Thanet for raising the sad case that we have considered, even though, despite examining it carefully, I am afraid that I am unable to offer much comfort to him or his constituent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

NHS Direct
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Stuart.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I am pleased to have this opportunity to mark the second birthday of NHS Direct and to share with hon. Members the Government's aims of improving health care delivery. People will look back on the past few weeks as a turning point in health care in this country. Arguably, it has been one of the most significant periods in the history of the national health service.
The service has faced enormous pressure and, sadly, some patients have not received the treatment that they deserve. That most have has gone largely unreported, and the tremendous efforts of NHS staff have sometimes been ill rewarded by those who are determined to pronounce the NHS past its sell-by date. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the historic declaration that, by managing the economy properly, we will be able to sustain increases in NHS funding that, in time, will bring the United Kingdom's spending up to the European Union average.
Mr. Philip Hammond: If I recall the Prime Minister's comments correctly, he said that if the Government managed the economy prudently, they would be able to bring NHS spending up to the European average as a percentage of gross domestic product within five years. However, the programme rolled out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the week before last does not achieve that. Does the hon. Lady have any comment to make on that?
Ms Stuart: As a former Conservative Chancellor made clear in a previous health debate, we have clearly signalled the point at which we want to arrive. The Chancellor's statement was simply the first step.
Dr. Peter Brand: The Government signalled the point at which they want to arrive, but in fact there is no clarity about what that point is. Are we talking about a raw average of GDP expenditure in the European Union, or a weighted average?
Ms Stuart: I am reminded of the saying that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. We could spend the next three hours arguing the finer points of weighted and straightforward averages. We have not only given a commitment as to the point at which we want to arrive, but underpinned that commitment by announcing the largest ever cash injection into the NHS, which will provide sustainable development over the next three years at least. That is the important point.
Kali Mountford: There has been an increase of 8.75 per cent. in expenditure in my
270WH
constituency this year—a huge increase, well above expectations. What is important is that the money is spent wisely, to achieve the sustainable growth that is needed in the NHS.
Ms Stuart: That is one of the themes that I shall take up: it is not simply a question of the sums of money that go into the service, but of the price at which the money comes. That price is a combination of a change in the delivery of the service and modernisation.
That exchange about figures signifies the sad passing of the post-war consensus on health. The Conservative party has declared for private insurance at the expense of expanding the NHS.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady would not expect me to let that comment pass without an intervention. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took the trouble on Tuesday to go to Bournemouth, where he stated loudly and clearly that, despite the allegations of Labour Ministers, the next Conservative Government will not privatise the national health service, retreat to a core model of provision or introduce any form of compulsory private insurance. Will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that?
Ms Stuart: I am happy to acknowledge that, although the hon. Gentleman should take note of the extent to which nurses who were present at Bournemouth were reassured by his right hon. Friend's statement. I concur with the nurses' judgment.
We are in new territory. I believe that the principles of the NHS are right. Its health care service is delivered according to clinical need and it is publicly funded; it is not delivered according to contributions that have been made or to one's ability to pay. However, I am convinced that practices in the NHS have to change—the NHS needs modernisation. The public often assume that modernisation involves a reduction in services, but that is not always correct.
Our approach will change the way in which things are done, because standing still will kill the NHS. Over the past 50 years, the service reached the point at which it was responsive neither to changes in people's lives, nor to the way in which technology can allow progress to be made. We are now in a different ball-game—the public have different expectations, and there have been changes in demography and in the relevant technologies.
Investment plus reform is the key to achieving a sustainable NHS. In other words, the extra resources that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined for the health service have a price tag: more money means modernisation. People will not stand for anything less. If we poured in extra billions, but failed to meet the public's expectations for a modern NHS, we should run the risk of fatally wounding the public's support for a universal, tax-funded health service. The Government will not let that happen.
Our modernisation programmes have as their starting point people's aspirations for their own health. More than ever before, people place a high value on good health. We all want to know more about our health and, if we fall ill, we want services that are of the highest quality—fast, fair and convenient. That approach involves the reinvention of the NHS, what it does and

271WH
the way in which it is run and organised. That is what we want to do. We want to modernise the service from top to bottom and to do so across the whole system of care, from primary care and prevention to secondary treatment.
We are putting in place a new and modern model of health service provision—the building blocks are now in place. One of the most significant and publicly visible building blocks is NHS Direct, which is at the forefront of our effort to modernise the NHS. The service is already transforming many people's experience of the NHS and extending health care into the home. It is a responsive, modern and new service that allows people to take responsibility for their health and empowers them to become more proactive partners in their health care.
We cannot move ahead simply by doing what was previously done, but doing it faster; we also need to do things differently, and the use of new technology by NHS Direct allows us to do that. We know from the 750,000 calls that have so far been received that the service has changed people's lives. A lovely example occurred at the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire site. A 70-year-old lady, who had made her prospective daughter-in-law's wedding dress, was about to attend her son's wedding, but, just before she went to church, she slipped on the stairs at home and fell. As her son was going to the telephone to dial 999, he saw a sticker on the fridge showing the phone number of NHS Direct. He rang the number. Nurses talked him through the problem and assured him that his mother was not in immediate danger; they said that she could get medical attention after she had attended the wedding, which she did. She was able to attend her son's wedding: the service changed her life because it allowed her to take the appropriate decision.
Mr. Hammond: The Under-Secretary has recounted a fascinating anecdote, but will she provide something more than anecdotes to back up her assertion that NHS Direct has changed people's lives. Does she have some hard evidence to that effect? The debate today will revolve around the evidence that NHS Direct is working, not the aspirations for it.
Ms Stuart: I certainly shall. A quick-response service, NHS Direct has the ability to upgrade a call to make it a blue-light emergency call for an ambulance. That has happened on 24,000 occasions, so it has made a real difference. I shall say more about evaluation of the service later in my speech.
NHS Direct is an example of the seamless service that we want. At a recent seminar, a health service manager spoke about her experience when, in the course of one day, she had had to call both British Gas's 24-hour line about a broken boiler, and NHS Direct about her three-year-old son's earache. She said that both services sorted out the relevant problem quickly. More important is the fact that, on both occasions, her problem was taken seriously: the people who answered the phone were calm and in control, and they made it clear that it was their responsibility to navigate the complexitites of their internal service to enable her to reach the desired result. She had rung up and she was given the complete soluion. That is the sort of response we need.
272WH
NHS Direct is also helping to broaden the role of nurses and thereby encourage them to stay in the NHS. In particular, it has given disabled nurses and those who have had to stop working on the wards a new opportunity fully to utilise their clinical experience and expertise. We have worked in partnership with local trusts to recruit and retain staff within the NHS, and we recognise local hotspots. Flexible placement schemes enable nurses to rotate between NHS Direct and local accident and emergency departments or walk-in centres. Not only does that allow staff mobility, but it helps to maintain those nurses' wider clinical skills.
Dr. Brand: Of course it is good to give people employment opportunities. However, the use of nurses who are not fit to do a hands-on nursing job has been quoted many times by various Government spokesmen, so will the hon. Lady tell me what proportion of nurses employed by NHS Direct fit into that category?
Ms Stuart: At this point it is important to recognise that, while NHS Direct—
Dr. Brand: How many?
Ms Stuart: May I finish?
NHS Direct employs the full-time equivalent of 600 nurses. Depending on how we count them, there are between 250,000 and 300,000 nurses in the system, so NHS Direct accounts for only a small core at this stage. Even so, we must recognise that it is a new service that is just beginning to be rolled out. All the early signs tell us that what I have described is a trend, and it should not be mocked.
Dr. Brand: I do not mock it. We have been told that the service employs 600 nurses. How many of those nurses could not fulfil another nursing role because of disability? The claim is repeatedly made by Government spokesmen, but if they want to claim credit for an enlightened employment policy, they should provide evidence.
Ms Stuart: Although it would be easy simply to count the small number of nurses who have a disability, a number come back after having a baby—
Dr. Brand: Five, 10, 15?
Mr. Stuart: We can certainly go back and examine the figures, but what is important is that we recognise that the service has been rolling out for two years, having started from small beginnings. It is to go national at the end of the year, and we shall build on such trends and opportunities.
Mr. Hammond: I suspect that many of the few hon. Members in the Chamber sympathise with the Under-Secretary's aspirations for NHS Direct. However, we are concerned about the lack of hard evidence to support the Government's assertions about its achievements. We will have a sterile debate if the hon. Lady cannot back with figures her argument that it is a success.

273WH
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is right to ask for the numbers. They might be low. Do the Government have any numbers? When the Under-Secretary asserts that NHS Direct provides a means of employing disabled nurses, is she merely voicing an aspiration, or stating a hard fact?
Ms Stuart: Perhaps we would have a more fruitful debate if I could get on with my speech, which will cover quite a few points that have been raised.
Kali Mountford: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ms Stuart: I shall briefly tackle the matter raised, then give way. Fewer than half the hon. Members in the Chamber attended the last Labour party conference, but some of them may have seen on television a quadriplegic nurse from Yorkshire—one of the first to be employed by NHS Direct—giving an extremely moving speech.
Mr. Hammond: So there is one.
Ms Stuart: No, there are more.
I shall say more about the Sheffield review later, as we are extremely keen that there should be independent evaluation.
Dr. Brand: There is no mention—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Chamber, not a Committee. Hon. Members may be tempted to make sedentary interventions, which can be helpful. However, it would help the Chair if they refrained from such behaviour and were a little more formal.
Ms Stuart: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford).
Kali Mountford: I cannot assist proceedings by providing figures, but I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views on my visit to Wakefield NHS Direct. I did not count how many nurses working there had disabilities, but some told me that they had hurt their back lifting patients and could not continue in their former role. More importantly, however, four women there would not have returned to the NHS after having children had they not had the opportunity to work for NHS Direct. More regular and more certain working hours helped them to manage their family lives better. A goodly number of the nurses I met—there were about 40 in all—had come back into the service because NHS Direct provided a route back. We should welcome that.
Ms Stuart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's contribution, which mirrors my own experience of visiting the sites.
I shall speak briefly about the nature of NHS Direct and how it has developed. The service was launched only two years ago. Initially, it covered only 3 per cent. of England, but it was extended last November to cover 40 per cent. of the population. Just before Christmas, the service covered 65 per cent. of the population. It has been extended at phenomenal speed, and we have been
274WH
evaluating it continuously. As the service is rolled out, the evaluation ensures that it is always clinically safe, sustainable and growing at the right speed.
In many ways, the service has been allowed to develop organically. By the end of October 2000, the whole of England will be covered. I do not see any Members representing North Yorkshire or east Lancashire in the Chamber; those regions will be fully covered by the end of August. we have been able to expand the service because of the extraordinary dedication of nurses, call handlers, health information advisers and managers.
Over Christmas, NHS Direct showed its worth in the extraordinary number of calls that it handled, which was well above normal rates. Some of the new sites had started operating just before the Christmas period, and they coped extremely well. Sometimes, the pressure meant that the call handler had to take the first call and patients then had to be rung back. However, in the services in respect of which we carried out a satisfaction survey, we found that 90 per cent. of callers were satisfied or very satisfied with the service, with 80 per cent. very satisfied. Some 48 per cent, of callers were given advice by a nurse on how to look after themselves. Only 30 per cent. were advised to contact their GPs, compared with 48 per cent. who said that they would have done so if they had not rung NHS Direct.
Mr. Hammond: Before the Under-Secretary moves on from those statistics, does she accept that some of the 48 per cent. who said that they would have contacted their GPs—presumably the GP out-of-hours services—would, had they done so, have talked to a nurse who was operating a triage service, or to a GP on the telephone, rather than visiting the GP's surgery?
Ms Stuart: They said that if they had not rung up NHS Direct, they would have rung the GP out-of-hours service. They took a different route. It would be easy to start playing with the figures, because we are talking about small samples, but the trends are clear. The service—this brings us back to the purpose of NHS Direct—is showing signs of meeting the policy need for appropriate access.
Mr. Hammond: The reason I ask the question is that my understanding, derived from the literature that I have read, is that the cost of a telephone triage call to a GP out-of-hours service is approximately a quarter of the cost of a call to NHS Direct. If all the Under-Secretary is telling us is that people who would have rung the GP out-of-hours service for a telephone consultation are ringing NHS Direct instead, I am not sure where the benefit to the overall system comes from.
Ms Stuart: There are two points. The individual costs to NHS Direct are lower than those to a GP out-of-hours service. The purpose of NHS Direct is to provide a single gateway, which gives the right access to the next point. I recall answering parliamentary questions on that issue: if I remember rightly, the cost of a call to NHS Direct is about £8, while the cost of a call to an out-of-hours service is closer to £35 or £40. I might be wrong about the exact figures, but the cost of the NHS Direct call is certainly lower.
Only two thirds of the country is covered at the moment; economies of scale might become more apparent once the service is completely national. We are

275WH
talking about early figures. However, the issue is not saving money, but making sure that people access the NHS at the appropriate level and that the next step they take is the correct one.
I want to say a little about the independent evaluation. We have asked Sheffield university to provide us with an on-going assessment and evaluation. The first report was published on the first anniversary of NHS Direct, and the second was published a year later, in March. Those interim reports clearly show that the public perception of using the service is positive, and they confirm its increasing popularity and safety. Safety was initially a concern, and people asked whether the service was safe and reliable. The reports also showed that the service's successful introduction did not increase the overall demand on other services, which had been feared. Indeed, in one area, the researchers found that the introduction of NHS Direct was associated with halting the upward trend in demand for out-of-hours medical services.
In accident and emergency departments, we have seen year-on-year increases in attendance. Some people may not have accessed the service, and we hope that in future they do so before attending the accident and emergency department. Even if numbers continue to rise, there might still be people who should have used the service but did not do so. We need to be careful, but the overall increasing trend has been halted in certain sectors.
Dr. Brand: I have the second interim report, dated February 2000, which suggests that there may be a slowing of the rising demand for out-of-hours GP services; however, it provides no figures comparing trial areas with other areas that provide evolved out-of-hours services through GP co-operatives. We need a decent comparator to assess statistical significance. I hope that the Minister will urge the researchers, in their definitive report, to provide better evidence for their tentative assertions.
Ms Stuart: Although I do not claim to be a statistician, I recall the statistical discussions with Sheffield university. Comparative data started to be compiled in the early pilots to allow for continuous comparison. We were careful to ensure that advertising took place only in areas where the service was available. Data will be much more reliable when the service goes national and we can assess the knock-on effects. Nevertheless, current trends show the clear signs that I have mentioned.
Dr. Brand: That is hardly a scientific pilot study. If control is destroyed by dispersing research throughout the country, a new system cannot be compared with another system that was in the process of evolving. I am not necessarily against the service, but the hon. Lady has not provided scientific arguments in favour of it. Let us be honest and recognise that it is politically convenient for the Government to have NHS Direct; it is unworthy to use cod science to justify it.
Ms Stuart: I might have failed to make it clear that the researchers are trying hard not to destroy the basis of
276WH
their research. Hon. Members should accept that the evaluation is independent, and that we have not even thought about political convenience. We want genuinely independent research. That is why—
Dr. Brand: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: No, I wish to make some progress. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to make their own speeches.
As I said, we have reached the evaluation stage and the trends are clear: NHS Direct is fulfilling the original policy intention of being a gateway to appropriate access to the health service and maintaining the confidence of the public. It is a success, but now the question is, where do we go from here?
A telephone service such as NHS Direct has the potential to achieve a range of objectives. Recently, NHS Direct demonstrated a new advantage. Last week, the Department of Health announced that some patients might have been exposed to hepatitis C, following the discovery that two health care workers were infected with the virus. Despite the fact that the risk of transmission was low, the patients identified as potentially at risk were sent a letter that explained what had happened and offered support and specialist clinical advice.
It became obvious that many members of the public were concerned about contact with the virus. An NHS Direct number was made available to the whole of England, so that anyone concerned about hepatitis C could gain access to 24-hour advice and information. I had long discussions about how that could be achieved. In areas that were not covered by NHS Direct, anyone ringing the NHS Direct number about hepatitis C was put through.
Hon. Members may regard what I am about to say as anecdotal, but it shows how NHS Direct can provide a service. In one four-day period, NHS Direct received calls about hepatitis C from more than 3,600 people. It was able safely to reassure 63 per cent. of the callers that they had no cause for concern, and to refer callers who might have been at risk to the NHS trust involved. That shows that, by working in partnership with other NHS services, NHS Direct can provide a fast, convenient response to concerned members of the public, while relieving pressure on the trusts, so that they can concentrate their efforts on the callers who most need their specialist advice and services.
At the recent Royal College of Nursing conference, I announced three new developments for NHS Direct. The first is the appointment of the first nurse consultant for NHS Direct, a post that is based at the Hampshire NHS Direct site. It is another example of the instrumental role of nurses being extended.
Secondly, as part of the roll-out of the national health service framework for mental health, the Government have made £1 million available to NHS Direct to provide a service responsive to the special needs of callers who want to ask about mental health. That has enabled us to establish a mental health lead for each NHS Direct site, supported by a specialist national project team. The focus will be on providing accurate and consistent advice—that is particularly important—about mental health concerns, information about local

277WH
mental health services and on making the necessary linkages to other services to enable the fast, effective delivery of care and services to groups who sometimes find it difficult to gain access to them.
Mr. Hammond: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about mental health services. In my constituency, an acute psychiatric unit has traditionally provided a helpline service to patients in the community who suffer a crisis. Can she give me an absolute assurance that such services, which are embedded in the acute psychiatric units, will not be shut down as the NHS Direct service rolls out?
Ms Stuart: Yes I can, because NHS Direct is being developed in co-operation with, and in addition to, the available local services and with the voluntary sector. As I said earlier about the consistency of advice, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have access to the service that he mentioned, but many people do not. Our intention is to ensure that the service is available whenever the need arises. Precisely how it will be delivered may vary from area to area.
The third development is the NHS Direct on-line service, which the Prime Minister launched in December. It provides the public with a gateway to the best of health information on the internet. Although the internet is easily accessible and can be the source of a tremendous range of information, it can also be extremely misleading. NHS Online will be a reliable source for further advice. It received 1.5 million hits on its first day and receives more than 100,000 hits on a typical day. Even more amazing to me were the favourable reviews it received in the computer press. Internet Magazine selected it as its website of the month.
On 20 March, NHS Direct ran its first on-line live discussion, with Professor Mike Richards, who is commonly known as the cancer tsar. It facilitated a discussion about the Government's plans to improve cancer services and proved to be a real interchange.
As with the telephone service, we are keen to develop NHS Online as the leading source of information. The site will be updated regularly and by the summer, we hope to provide access to searchable information about local services such as pharmacists. It will use model technology, which in this instance is international, to provide focused local information.
There has been tremendous grass-roots development of the service. A significant characteristic is the way local communities have taken ownership of it and developed services that are responsive to the needs of their areas. In some areas, we have integrated access to out-of-hours services. This has enabled NHS Direct nurses to pass callers on seamlessly to the out-of-hours doctor, or direct them to other services, if appropriate. The caller does not have to make two calls; there is only one call, which moves on behind the scenes. It also makes for cost-effective delivery of out-of-hours care.
GPs have expressed much concern. Some feel threatened by the changes, and I acknowledge that change is always unsettling, but the Government have made it clear that GPs should not feel threatened, and we have found no evidence that they are. NHS Direct is not intended to replace them or usurp their role; it is additional to what they already do.
Mr. Hammond: What studies have the Government commissioned to compare the cost-effectiveness of delivering telephone triage services through NHS Direct as opposed to through GP out-of-hours co-operatives?
Ms Stuart: It is part of the continuing evaluation of the service. A simple calculation is that an NHS Direct call at £8 is cheaper than the GP out-of-hours service. If as a result, only 50 per cent. of patients go on to talk to their GP, that is almost an indirect saving in itself.
In discussing this new service, I stress that to focus purely on the apparent short-term saving is not to focus on the right aspect. I said initially that we are putting more money into the NHS because more money is needed, and that the price tag that comes with the extra money is a reliable and convenient—but different—way of delivering services. NHS Direct plays a vital part in that. Of course part of the evaluation will be costs, but costs alone will not be an indicator of success or failure. I like to think that, even in basic business, cost cutting is not a long-term strategy. The strategy should concern whether the service is delivering something that is needed at a competitive price.
I return to the point about evidence from GPs because concern has arisen. There was a point at which, if one had relied solely on the professional journals, one could easily have thought that this was the biggest threat ever to general practitioners. I was interested to see recently in the letter pages of newspapers that GPs are stating that it is inappropriate to attack the service, because it is helping them.
I can always tell from conversations with GPs whether the service is available in their area. Similarly, with members of the public, I always know when they have used the service and when they have not heard of it. A lovely example occurred yesterday in the Room next door during a reception for about 30 GPs. Someone asked what sounded like a hostile question. Before I had time to answer, a GP who stood next to me, whom I thought was very brave, grabbed the microphone and said, "I am a GP and you really should not attack the service. We are using it in co-operation with our out-of-hours service and it works extremely well. We find that it actually makes our work easier." The Sheffield report also stated that experience on the ground is that the benefits of the service are beginning to show. It is working with GPs. In some areas, co-operatives are working; in others, it is not a step that people wish to take. It is a question of responding to local needs.
We should also consider the knock-on effects of NHS Direct in other areas. I will examine briefly other areas of integration. Last winter saw huge and increasing pressure on our accident and emergency departments. We should examine the reasons for that, and consider whether we can control the system better, so that the facilities of A and E departments are reserved for those who really need them. At present, if someone rings NHS Direct and it becomes clear, following consultation with the nurse, that it is an urgent ambulance call, NHS Direct can upgrade it to a 999 call. There is no provision to reverse that process when someone rings 999. Often, what appears to be a real emergency—and many people's first reaction is to dial 999—turns out not to need an ambulance.

279WH
In some of the pilot areas, as soon as a call comes in and the ambulance team has the grid reference and is ready to go, the call is placed in one of three categories—A, B and C. If the situation is life-threatening, or if the call is in category B, the ambulance goes. A category C call, however, does not need an immediate response. Such calls are transferred, without the need for a further telephone call, to an NHS Direct nurse, who will have the time and experience properly to triage the call and assess whether an ambulance is really needed. Although, at this stage, we do not know what the figures are, people on the ground are certain that there is scope for developing more appropriate use of the system. That takes us towards our aim of ensuring that the system is safe and robust and delivers appropriate access.
The outcome is similar in the case of developments such as more proactive outward calling by NHS Direct—for instance, reminding people to have a flu vaccination or attend an out-patient appointment. Proactive calling ensures that people are reminded about something that they needed to do and that service delivery is more efficient. In the long-term, there will be a role for NHS Direct in a more structured disease management programme for chronic conditions such as coronary heart disease or diabetes.
For too long, pharmacists, as professionals in the health community, have not been utilised as well as they could be. NHS Direct has played a significant role in bringing them to the forefront. They have tremendous experience, and one NHS Direct site—Essex, Barking and Havering—works in partnership with the National Pharmaceutical Association to pilot what they call an alternative end-point referring system, through which a caller can be referred directly to a community pharmacist. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is involved in the pilot scheme, which went live this month. It is still at an early stage—before hon. Members ask for figures—but, so far, there is evidence that 5 per cent. of callers are referred to their pharmacist for specialist help and advice.
Mr. Hammond: I am entirely at one with the Under-Secretary in believing that pharmacists are a hugely under-utilised resource in our primary care delivery system. Does the Under-Secretary have any statistics on the percentage of callers who would have visited a pharmacist had they not called NHS Direct?
Ms Stuart: We do not have those figures. We have figures on the number of people who have done something differently as a result of their call, but they are not broken down in such a way that we would know what else they would have done or whether they would have gone to the pharmacist. Such figures might not be accurate. I have used NHS Direct twice—I refrained from saying who I was. The first time, I needed a malaria tablet and did not know whether I needed a prescription. I rang up, and was told to see a pharmacist. I do not know what I would have done otherwise whatever was most convenient, probably. A figure based on asking people what they would have done instead may not be a reliable indicator. However, we have found an appropriate level of referrals to pharmacists. For example, the figures for people calling NHS Direct with
280WH
flu-like symptoms over the winter, show that a huge number of people were referred to self-care. At the same time, there was an unprecedented jump in the number of flu remedies sold over the counter by Boots The Chemists. We cannot establish a statistical link, but that shows a clear trend.
Mr. Hammond: I am sorry to be persistent, but I must clarify the issue. The Minister said that we could not necessarily rely on what people say they would have done. Unless I am mistaken, earlier she quoted the number of people who said that they would have gone to a GP if NHS Direct had not existed. Is that figure a reliable indicator?
Ms Stuart: I was trying to say that going to a GP is a real choice. I could either ring up, or go to see my GP, sometimes in doubt about whether I could have gone to the pharmacist. I am simply suggesting that choosing to visit the pharmacist is not as determined a decision as that of choosing to go to a GP.
One of our aims with the pilot scheme is to give consistent advice. There is scope for more training for pharmacists, who give daily advice about the next appropriate step. If training is co-ordinated with NHS nursing, a patient's access route will not matter, because the advice will be consistent within the health framework.
We discussed people who do not, but should, have access to the health service. We are working closely with the Contraceptive Education Service, an agency that provides specialist advice on contraception and pregnancy, including teenage pregnancy. That is a subject that is close to my heart, and we must tackle it. I hope that the potential of making a confidential telephone call will encourage more young people to ask for advice. NHS Direct can refer callers who require specialist or in-depth advice to the Contraceptive Education Service's helpline. That is another example of an existing helpline that should not feel threatened by NHS Direct, because it provides an additional service.
We want to use NHS Direct to reach out to other groups who do not use the health service. In homeless shelters in London, we have set up two pilots using dedicated freephones. Homeless people often find it difficult to register with a GP, and the pilots give them access. We are working with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to undertake an audit of NHS Direct to ensure that it can respond to the needs of callers with disabilities; and with interpreter services for callers whose first language is not English to ensure that everyone, irrespective of their first language, receives a reliable service. We use confidential interpreters, and so far, NHS Direct has provided help and advice in more than 30 languages. NHS Direct continues to work with services for black and ethnic minority communities, to take account not only of preferred languages, but of cultural difference and preference.
Now I will deal with a group of people who traditionally neglect their health, and who we think need to take more care of their health: men, who form the majority in this Room, and especially young men, although they are certainly in the minority here. They do not look after their health, and we want to ensure that they are better able to take responsibility for it. The

281WH
early stages of the scheme suggest that women, who have traditionally been the guardians of family health, are more likely to ring NHS Direct. Our research shows that women often ring on behalf of others, especially children. We hope that availability by telephone will allow men to use the service more to inquire about their own health. The on-line service on the internet may also appeal more to the young male audience.
Mr. Hammond: I intervene on the Under-Secretary again, first, because I am offended by her comment. Secondly, I accept that wanting to reach men who tend not to access medical services is a worthy aspiration, but does the evidence so far not show—as detailed in her written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—that very few young men access that service? It is used primarily by women on behalf of children and young women on their own behalf.
Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right; that is what the current research shows. I come back to the fact that in a short period we have created a service that covers two thirds of the country; it is a national service. Now that it is set up, we must focus much more on reaching out to the people who need it. The percentage figures at this stage would not support the argument that that is already happening, but it is our aspiration to reach the groups that have not been reached.
Another figure that has not gone up—to pre-empt a further intervention—is that for the elderly population. We would expect that figure to rise and those people to use the service much more. The age profile has remained fairly static so far, but the service is available.
I have some anecdotal evidence for the success of NHS Direct. A 93-year-old gentleman told us that he had twice used the service, and that it was the best thing that had happened to the health service since 1948. It is encouraging for people to know that they can use the telephone when they need help, but really do not want to bother anyone. Elderly people, who have every right to use a service, sometimes do not want to bother anyone. Elderly people, who have every right to use a service, sometimes do not wish to cause any bother. When I spent a day with west midlands ambulance service, we made a call on someone who had had a stroke in the middle of the night, and whose wife did not want to bother anyone until 8 am because she felt that it would be antisocial to ring anyone so late. We are working towards extending the service to that kind of person. It aspires to be a safe service, provided to everyone regardless of age, gender, language, disability or culture, and it shows every sign of achieving that.
The modernisation programme, however, goes beyond NHS Direct, which is only one of the building blocks in the programme.
Dr. Brand: Before we go on to the wider issues, would the Under-Secretary tell us how much NHS Direct as she has described it will cost, after it has been rolled out over the country?
Ms Stuart: The current overall budget is £80 million. The huge potential for the service means that we have to choose which areas we want to focus on and take
282WH
forward. My priority is mental health, provisions for which are already being implemented. Another priority is the category C triage on ambulances. We should consider whether that should be used on a one-off basis as in the hepatitis scare, and how best to roll out the programme. NHS Direct could be used for many services, but that is its current budget.
NHS Direct is a vital building block in the effort to make primary care services more accessible, given the way our lives and technology have changed. It is not only an on-line service; so far, 36 pilot walk-in services have been announced, and the total investment into that initiative will be £31 million this year. That means that 10 million people will have access to more flexible NHS care.
The key aim of the walk-in centres is to provide rapid access primary care to patients who are disadvantaged by not having access to the service immediately. That includes groups such as workers and commuters, whom we would not usually classify as disadvantaged. Members of Parliament, owing to the lives that we lead, are only too aware of the difficulties of getting in touch with our general practitioners. We in this Room are a prime target group for walk-in centres. They will also address the needs of those in deprived areas such as Tottenham and Edmonton, which have high economic and social deprivation and many refugees and asylum seekers. Since January, eight walk-in centres have been opened—in London, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, Norwich and Swindon. A further six will open this month and the remainder by December.
Primary care also needs to be modernised and expanded.
Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you make it clear how wide you will allow this debate to range? I came here specifically prepared to talk about NHS Direct, which is the title of the debate. The Under-Secretary is now moving into a much wider discussion about primary care delivery, which I should be delighted to engage in but have not prepared for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): The content of hon. Members' speeches, including those of Ministers, is happily not a matter for the Chair. Otherwise, life might be even more exciting. The Under-Secretary has been generous about accepting interventions, and I am sure that she will bear in mind that the main subject is NHS Direct. If she is out of order, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall draw her attention to the fact.
Ms Stuart: I recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the original title of the debate was "NHS Direct and Modernisation". I hope that you will find that my remarks relate to the modernisation of the NHS, using NHS Direct as the main example. However, hon. Members need not worry too much.
I want to come back to the point about GPs' fears about NHS Direct. One of the great advantages of the British NHS is the co-ordination of care that list-based general practice has brought about, which I understand the French, American and German systems are now seeking to replicate.
We must target access to primary care much more closely. The main role of GPs to deliver primary care will be expanded by the creation of the primary care

283WH
trusts and primary care groups. They will be the agents of change, because they are best placed to respond to local needs. We hope, over time, to have more primary care single sites, some of them as a result of public-private partnerships, where doctors, dentists, pharmacists, opticians and nurses all provide easier care and access. People with chronic conditions such as heart disease, asthma, diabetes and depression will again have much more regular help from a single health and social care team, which will allow them to maintain a full life.
Those developments mean that we need further advances in easy access to information and use of communication and information technology, but we must also meet the public's expectation for a responsive public service. NHSnet, which is the NHS private network, is one means of affording access. Although a patient may access a service, whether it be a walk-in centre or NHS Direct, the GP is still his case manager. Those new developments in technology allow the exchange of information.
We want to ensure that every GP has access to a desktop computer linked to NHSnet, which will enable and facilitate that exchange of information. We want the consulting room to be the place where out-patient appointments are made, operations booked, test results received and diagnoses carried out, using video and telelinks to hospital specialists. All that is emerging, and extraordinary work is being done in some areas. Recently, I visited Blackburn. Bolton, Bury, Blackburn and—there was another B?
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Burnley.
Ms Stuart: Thank you. Bolton, Bury, Blackburn and Burnley hospitals are linked together by a telemedicine system, whereby the maxillofacial surgeons in Blackburn and the other three A and E departments are linked up. The picture transmission quality is extremely high, which allows those specialists to assess whether a patient needs to be transferred. Again, we are using technology to modernise access to the service.
In conclusion, NHS Direct is one building block in the modernisation of the NHS, which is about redesigning the service that we deliver to patients and recognising that the public increasingly demand that all public services, including the health service, be responsive and place them at the centre of that responsiveness. In addition, it enables people to know where the right point of access is, if they do fall ill. All the early stages of evaluation have made it clear that NHS Direct is well on the way to delivering on those aspirations. The service will be available nationally by the end of the year. Piloting is going on, as is outside evaluation, which will allow us to make the right choices about how to move on. So far, NHS Direct is sending a clear sign of our commitment to a national health service that meets the challenges of the new century and the expectations of the public. This building block is showing every sign of delivering.
3.31 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: The full title of the debate is "Second Anniversary of NHS Direct", and I shall seek to stick rigidly to that
284WH
theme. I will start by reassuring the Minister and other hon. Members that I have no objection in principle to the concept behind NHS Direct. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) claims some ownership of it as a result of the pilot schemes of telephone triage that were set up in Wiltshire under the previous Administration.
However, I have some suspicion, which is mirrored in the medical community, about the Govenment's motives. Is the service intended to replace the GP out-of-hours co-operative system? Is it intended, through the use of what is euphemistically termed an integrated access route, to become the only gateway to accessing primary medical services? Is it intended to replace the 999 ambulance service? The Under-Secretary will have reassuring answers to all those questions, but I ask her to understand that there is a background of suspicion about the Government's motivation. It arises not because of the Government's espousal of the concept of a telephone triage system, but because of the unseemly haste with which it has been rolled out and the apparent reluctance to wait for the evidence that would support that roll-out.
The Sheffield report mentioned by the Under-Secretary sets out four objectives of NHS Direct:
to offer the public a confidential, reliable and consistent source of professional advice on healthcare, 24 hours a day…to provide simple and speedy access to a comprehensive and up to date range of health and related information…to help improve quality, increase cost-effectiveness and reduce unnecessary demands on other NHS services—
and—
to allow professionals to develop their role in enabling patients to be partners in self-care.
Those objectives constitute uncontroversial aspirations, and I think that we would all share them. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept that there is a requirement to measure whether the service is delivering on them. To use the scientific jargon, there is a requirement to have a base of evidence to support the continued roll-out of NHS Direct. Our debate is about whether that base of evidence exists and whether the Government's roll-out of the service is justified by the published evidence in relation to the stated objectives.
I detect a touch of defensiveness in the Government's position. On 22 February 2000, I tabled a written question asking the Secretary of State for Health whether he would
place in the Library a copy of the report his Department has received from Sheffield University on NHS Direct.
That report, which was mentioned earlier, is dated February 2000. The Under-Secretary replied:
Sheffield University's interim report is in the Library. This was published in March 1999. Sheffield university's final report on NHS Direct is expected shortly. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 903w.]
She did not mention the further interim report, which was on Ministers' desks at the time. Why was she anxious to throw me off the trail?
On 13 March, I tabled a written question asking the Secretary of State for Health about the
studies he has commissioned to establish how many users, as distinct from individual calls, there are of NHS Direct.

285WH
The Under-Secretary again answered my question, on 14 March—a commendably speedy response. She said:
We have not commissioned any studies to establish how many users, as distinct from individual calls, there are of NHS Direct.—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 134W.]
Her answer is rather strange. If she had read the Sheffield report that her Department commissioned, she would know that that matter was analysed in the report. There is an interesting result relating to the number of multiple callers to the Milton Keynes site. That was the point that I wanted to establish and to which I shall return presently.
I have no problem with the suggestion that a sensible set of aspirations lie behind NHS Direct, or with the idea of rolling out the service when it has been proved that it can do what the Government wants it to do. However, in view of the scarcity of NHS resources—I am sure that the Under-Secretary and I at least agree that however much funding the Chancellor finds for the NHS, money will always be a scarce resource and hard allocation decisions will always have to be made—I have a problem with spending money before we are sure that it is being spent effectively. The £80 million that the Under-Secretary said would be spent on NHS Direct could put an additional 4,000 nurses on wards in hospitals. We must continuously test the cost-effectiveness of NHS Direct against such alternative uses of the money.
Earlier, I quoted the objective that involves wanting to
reduce unnecessary demands on other NHS services.
One of my concerns about the Sheffield university report and the relevant published information involves the absence of controlled studies or comparisons between the situation in NHS Direct and that in other parts of the service. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) alluded to that concern in an earlier intervention. In order to evaluate objectively the success or otherwise of NHS Direct, we need to know about its impact on other parts of the service. To do that, we need to carry out controlled studies, which necessitates comparing the areas that have NHS Direct with those that do not.
The Under-Secretary gave us some anecdotal evidence—she cited GPs' views of the service. At the risk of offending the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, I should not for a moment suggest that GPs' views should be considered conclusive in this or any matter. However, as reducing the demands on GP services is clearly one of the intentions of NHS Direct, their views of it are informative. To the extent that NHS Direct may be seen as a direct competitor of out-of-hours GP services—both offer a telephone triage service, one run by nurses, the other primarily by doctors—it is relevant for us to consider what the doctors think about it and the relative costs of the two services.
I shall return to costs in a moment, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary, and indeed you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will indulge me a little if I quote one or two comments reported in the professional press by doctors. Pulse, a magazine widely read by practitioners and, I should say in fairness, widely quoted by me in Standing Committees considering health Bills and related material, said on 1 April:
Results of the survey of more than 200 GPs show that in GPs' experience NHS Direct caused unnecessary distress and wasted NHS resources…More than half thought patients had had their
286WH
anxiety levels raised unnecessarily and 56 per cent. thought patients had been given inappropriate advice…Nearly a third of GPs have refused to give the service any publicity in their surgeries.
On 17 March, Pulse said:
GP co-operatives have a clear message for the government—they do not want further integration with NHS Direct. The co-ops argue that prime minister Tony Blair's "unproven pet project" is not efficient or flexible enough to join GPs' highly developed out-of-hours systems.
Ms Stuart: Given that we are all greatly concerned about surveys and data being reliable, will the hon. Gentleman agree that a survey in Pulse, based on a response to a cut-out coupon in a previous edition of Pulse from a self-selected group of 200 people who were unlikely to write in with any positive comments, may not be a good statistical basis?
Mr. Hammond: I would not suggest for a moment that I am quoting a statistically relevant sample; it is anecdotal, but the Under-Secretary herself relied on anecdote to a fair extent. I deliberately prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not seeking to use GPs' anecdotal comments as fatal to the cause of NHS Direct. I merely think that in the ideal model, if the service were working as intended, GPs could be expected to be huge beneficiaries of it and waving their little flags. The fact that many GPs and GP representative organisations express scepticism should give us pause and cause for concern.
I shall not read extensive quotes, but I suspect that the problem relates almost entirely to the speed of the roll-out. From discussions that I have had with general practitioners and their representative organisations I doubt whether they would be as concerned if the roll-out had been more measured and if it had been clear that the Government were waiting for the evidence to support the scheme before rolling it out.
Whatever the Under-Secretary tells us, she will not be able to dissuade me and, I suspect, many others from believing that, although the Government have commissioned studies to look at the effect of NHS Direct, they have already taken the decision to roll it out nationwide before they see the evidence for or against it. That must lead us to question whether the motivation is as objective as the Under-Secretary has sought to suggest.
Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the very fact of rolling out NHS Direct throughout the country means that studies to compare the effectiveness of the NHS cannot be done, because the comparators are being destroyed?
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right: he has made the point before that proper controlled studies will become impossible. However, as I understand it, no studies are even being done to measure the impact on other parts of the national health service. GPs' hostility may derive partly from what they may perceive as the Government's hypocritical attitude in asserting their commitment to evidence-based medicine in the NHS generally, but acting in this case in a way that is clearly not evidence-based.

287WH
The key issue is not whether NHS Direct is appealing as a concept. Of course it is. It strikes all of us as a good idea to have an easy, convenient and relatively cheap way of accessing the system. The key issue is whether it is effective and cost-effective. The Minister might recognise those terms of reference, which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is required to take into account in evaluating a drug. Is the drug clinically effective, is it cost-effective and is it affordable with regard to the overall level of resources available to the NHS? In other words, is it good value for money where it is clinically and cost-effective? I hope that the Minister would agree that the criteria applied by the Government to other services and treatments should also be applied to NHS Direct, and that to get a tick in the box on its second birthday, NHS Direct must pass muster against those tests.
What evidence would be required to satisfy those questions? Indeed, what studies have the Government commissioned? The Sheffield study, admirable though it is, looks narrowly at what is happening in the three initial NHS pilot sites. The KPMG study will examine nine NHS Direct sites. What worries me—
3.46 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Hammond: I was trying to elicit from the Minister whether the Government have commissioned wider studies that will consider matters within a broader spectrum than the NHS Direct sites. Are there studies that will compare related NHS facilities with the NHS Direct sites and with GPs' out-of-hours services?
If we accept that NHS Direct must pass the hurdles that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence would apply in looking at a new procedure or process, we must consider whether NHS Direct is a clinically effective solution and then whether it is cost-effective.
The Minister was sceptical about the views of doctors; as I said earlier, GPs do not always have the answer to every problem. However, she would be disappointed if I did not quote from the New Statesman of 20 March 2000, in which a relative of the Prime Minister expressed serious concerns about NHS Direct. The article is headlined, "The idea of NHS Direct was to cut GPs' work in half by offering patients easy access to advice. When Lauren Booth tried it, she very nearly died as a result." The article is not only about her experience; it quotes some well-respected doctors, and says about one of them that
like all those in the UK, her practice is already contracted to provide a 24-hour service to its patients. NHS Direct, she feels, is duplicating an under-funded service that has existed for years—a service run by better-qualified staff…Many calls to NHS Direct get referred on to GPs anyway.
The article continues:
This means that a loop is formed with distressed patients being asked to wait for an available GP to call them back. The current favouritism for this project also leads to less important cases being passed on as "urgent" when they are not…
288WH
The GP continues:
I must then bypass all my other waiting patients to answer these calls simply because they come via NHS Direct.
The article reports:
just as some cases labelled urgent by the computer programme used to assess each call are not urgent, so some seriously sick patients can be misdiagnosed and left at home.
An NHS consultant is quoted, stating:
one man was prescribed paracetamol when he called NHS Direct; he had a serious case of malaria. Another man was told to go to bed and rub Vick's vapour on his chest; he nearly died from meningitis.
The report continues:
All GPs know from experience that prescribing and diagnosing over the telephone is one of the most dangerous things you can do.
The article highlights questions about the quality of triage that can be carried out over the telephone. The first question is about the quality of telephone triage as compared with personal triage. GPs to whom I have spoken and comments that I have read in the available literature suggest that the visual clues that the GP or clinician gets from the patient are important in making the correct diagnosis. We should not ignore doctors' views on the dangers of making telephone diagnoses.
The Minister proudly tells us that NHS Direct has been made available in many languages, and I have seen that in action at the NHS Direct site in Surrey, where, an interpreter is used when the caller's first language is not English. However, if it is difficult and dangerous to make a diagnosis by telephone when the doctor and patient both speak English as a first language, how much more dangerous and difficult must it be to make that diagnosis third-hand over the telephone, via a non-specialist interpreter who is trying to interpret the words of a frightened and confused patient who is speaking to a doctor in a foreign language? I can understand the reason for providing such services, but I would like to see hard clinical evidence that the benefits of immediate access that the telephone triage service offers fully outweigh the inevitable risks and downside.
We must ask for evidence that a nurse-led telephone triage service provided in dedicated centres is as good as, or better than, a GP-led triage service provided by out-of-hours services or co-operatives. I accept that the quality of services provided out of hours by different groups of GPs varies and that there might be arguments for improving them, but I wonder on what evidence it was decided that £80 million could not be better and more effectively spent beefing up GP out-of-hours services than on NHS Direct. Data on the quality of triage offered via telephone are insufficient to enable a sensible analysis of what is happening to be made, or to form the basis for decisions that the Government have already made in terms of committing themselves to rolling out NHS Direct across the country.
The critical question we must ask ourselves is whether NHS Direct is achieving better outcomes? What do the Government propose to do about the wide discrepancy in next-referral patterns? Between just the three sites covered in the Sheffield report, we see significant variations in the percentage of patients who are referred to GPs, A and E and self-medication.
Has the Minister undertaken any work to discover how many callers to NHS Direct are seeking a second opinion after a GP visit? I was told anecdotally—I am

289WH
afraid that all we have is anecdotes, because the statistics have not been published and the Government might not even have asked for them—that a significant proportion of the calls to the NHS Direct site that I visited were from patients who had already visited a GP and were seeking confirmation of what the GP told them.
In how many cases is NHS Direct merely an extra step in accessing the same care? The Minister told us, and we know from the statistics, that 40 per cent. of NHS Direct calls result in a referral to a GP. We need to know how many of those people would not have gone to the GP if they had not called NHS Direct. We also need to know what the others would have done. How many of those who were referred to self-medication would have gone to a pharmacist or self-medicated without doing so? In other words, we must evaluate on a properly controlled basis the extent to which NHS Direct changes people's behaviour patterns. The information quoted by the Minister does not come close to enabling us to do that.
What impact has NHS Direct had on waiting times for a GP appointment? If the system were working optimally, people who do not need to clutter GPs' surgeries would be dealt with on the telephone; conversely, those who need an appointment would be seen more quickly by their GP, instead of having to wait two, three, five—or in some places, 10—days for a routine appointment. No evidence has been adduced to suggest that the position on seeking a GP appointment has improved as a result of NHS Direct.
What impact has NHS Direct had on waiting times in accident and emergency departments? We may assume that some people would go to their local A and E department if they did not have the option of calling NHS Direct. If so, waiting times in A and E departments should improve in areas where the service is running, which would be a good thing. I reiterate that my criticisms are not intended to be negative. There may be good news in all cases, but the evidence is not available, so we simply do not know. I have not yet seen anything to reassure me that studies are being undertaken.
The Under-Secretary said that the GP is still the case manager. How does that work in practice when a patient rings NHS Direct? Under the current system, how does the GP get information about that call? In the ideal world mentioned by the hon. Lady, it would be possible to link all GPs on NHS net and to hold electronic patient records somewhere in the ether. At the moment, however, NHS Direct, like GP walk-in centres, is eroding continuity of care, which has been a keystone of this country's primary care.
Turning to cost-effectiveness and value for money, we must ask whether NHS Direct delivers a given outcome more cost-effectively than any other available means: the issue needs to be viewed in the context of competing demands and offering an additional service. I have seen data showing that 40 per cent. of NHS Direct callers are referred to their GP, and a further 7 per cent. to an accident and emergency department. Therefore, in almost half the cases, the cost of the NHS Direct service is a net additional cost to the cost of dealing with the patient. Substantially better clinical outcomes in the remaining 53 per cent. of cases, or some other saving in the system, are needed to justify that cost. Is the service simply an extra tier? What evidence is there that we are
290WH
saving money or improving the national health service—two sides of the same coin—by channelling callers through NHS Direct?
Earlier, the Under-Secretary and I discussed the relative costs of providing different services. I suspect that we had a slight disagreement, and I should like clarification. The hon. Lady said that the intended cost of NHS Direct, when fully rolled out, is £80 million per annum. We are told that there is NHS Direct coverage of 65 per cent. of the country, and that an average of 8,000 calls are made every day. Arithmetic was never my best subject, but that suggests that 2.92 million calls per annum are made to the service in its present form. If we extrapolate on the basis of 100 per cent. coverage, it would equate to 4.5 million calls per annum.
At an overall budget of £80 million, my rudimentary arithmetic suggests that the cost per call to NHS Direct is £17.77, not the £8 that the Minister cites. To get to her £8, she must assume that the number of calls per 100,000 people covered will more than double as the service is rolled out nationally. I am not sure what her grounds are for believing that. Perhaps when she winds up she will put some flesh around the figures.
Let us take the Minister's figure of £8 for telephone triage via NHS Direct. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), she states:
We envisage the cost of NHS Direct to be approximately £8 per telephone call. This compares favourably to the cost per accident and emergency attendance £42 (1997–98) and cost per general practitioner contact £10.55 (1996–97),—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 902W.]
Is that true? If it costs £8 for a patient to be diagnosed by telephone, which means that the person carrying out the diagnosis has no ability to assess the patient's symptoms visually, and it costs £10.55 to visit the surgery of a GP who can pick up the visual clues, does £8 represent a value-for-money outcome?
The Minister also took issue with me over the costs of GP out-of-hours co-operative contacts, saying that they were more expensive than NHS Direct contacts. I do not have figures here and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could provide them. I can say that the chairman of the National Association of GP Co-operatives appears to disagree with her: he believes that GP co-ops handle twice as many calls as NHS Direct, and that their total cost is roughly half that of NHS Direct. That suggests a cost per telephone call handled that is a quarter that of NHS Direct.
Two things need to be clarified. First, if we are comparing apples with apples and we are comparing telephone triage with telephone triage, is NHS Direct really cheaper than GP out-of-hours services? Does a nurse-led dedicated service provide better clinical outcomes than a GP-led service embedded in the overall GP service, in which continuity of contact with the patient is maintained? Secondly, if the relative costs are £8 for an NHS Direct telephone contact against £10.55 for a GP consultation, does the NHS Direct contact represent value for money?
I also asked the Minister about the number of callers versus the number of calls. Modern technology obviously makes it easy to log the number of calls to NHS Direct, but I should like to know how many people are using the service. There has been an investigation

291WH
into that question by Sheffield university, notwithstanding what the hon. Lady said in her written answer to me. It made an astounding discovery: apparently, 10 users made over 6 per cent. of all the calls to the service at Milton Keynes.
It could be argued that those people might have attended every day at the local surgery and used up GP's time—that would be a perfectly plausible counter-argument—but we need evidence. We need to know whether NHS Direct is generating demand from people who are perhaps, and I use the term with some trepidaton, abusing the system. If we are to measure the service being delivered, we must have evidence.
I spoke earlier about the objectives of the system. I reiterate my concerns that the Government have hidden objectives additional to those announced publicly. The Under-Secretary's statement about the 999 ambulance service has given some credence to my belief that the Government are anxious to put the structure in place because they have grander designs for it.
People are worried about the clinical outcomes of NHS Direct contact, but we cannot conclude definitively whether those concerns are justified until we have the evidence. There are real concerns that the expected reduction in the burden on the other parts of the health service is not happening and will not happen. The Under-Secretary supplied evidence to show a reduction in the upward trend of calls to GP out-of-hours services, but that was the only identified reduction in service demands in the Sheffield study, and it occurred in only one of the three sites. Clearly, the evidence for a reduced burden elsewhere is by no means conclusive. There is no evidence of reduced GP consultation, no evidence of reduced accident and emergency use and only limited evidence of a slowing of the rate of increase in telephone triage provided by GP out-of-hours services.
No one who evaluated the available evidence could conclude that there was an overwhelming case that NHS Direct will be both clinically effective and cost-effective. On the basis of the evidence, no one would decide to roll it out across the country. I do not reject the possibility that NHS Direct will provide benefits, be cost-effective and be affordable within the national health service budget, but there is no evidence to support the decision to roll it out nationwide.
Will the Minister explain what the Government are doing to collect the necessary evidence? The Sheffield and KPMG studies will not produce the comparative data needed to compare the cost and performance of NHS Direct with that of other potential methods of delivering a similar service. Why did the Government, with all their emphasis on evidence-based medicine, decide to roll the service out without waiting for evidence from the pilots? That decision goes against all good management practice and everything that the Government said.
The Government's attitude encourages two types of sceptic. A sceptic of the first type sees a hidden agenda, believing that the Government are anxious to get the system up and running in order to use NHS Direct to undermine GPs' independent contractor status, to undermine the 999 ambulance service, and to move
292WH
towards a single integrated gateway to primary care. The second type of sceptic thinks that NHS Direct has been rolled out quickly because it provides a good soundbite. That is why the Government did not wait for evidence before announcing the nationwide roll-out, and why they failed to make the roll-out conditional on any of the stringent criteria that are set for drugs and treatments evaluated by NICE.
The Minister know that I am a reasonable person. I see the potential of a telephone triage service, but I am not convinced that a dedicated service separate from the GP service is necessarily the way forward, nor am I convinced that the Government have explored adequately the possibility of working within the existing GP out-of-hours service, with all the benefits of contact and continuity that that delivers. I must therefore question the Government's motives in setting up a separate service that was bound to cause friction with GPs—one that, in addition, produces a less well-qualified level of triage at a higher cost. I accept that my final words are contentious but that is how it appears to me.
The bottom line is that we have not established today—nor have the Government in the evidence they have allowed into the public domain—that NHS Direct represents the best way to spend £80 million of public money in an attempt to improve access to the national health service. The jury is out on NHS Direct. Ministers have not inspired my confidence or that of others: there is no evidence that they genuinely intend to evaluate the success or otherwise of NHS Direct, or that they are willing to probe its success or otherwise. I fear that they intend to roll it out anyway if it complies with their own criteria for measuring effectiveness in the NHS.
There is a deep suspicion that NHS Direct is a pet political project of the Prime Minister and that it would indeed be a brave Health Minister who commissioned the sort of in-depth, probing, objective analysis that might reveal that NHS Direct was not a good way of spending national health service money. I urge the Under-Secretary, in the interests of her credibility and that of Ministers at the Department of Health, to ensure that proper evidence is gathered and proper objectives undertaken, and that the service is not rolled out regardless of the evidence that the results produce.
4.26 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: I will try not to demonstrate that the length of a speech must meet the time available because we are beginning to run into time constraints.
I had to look twice to see who initiated today's Adjournment debate. I was somewhat surprised that it was the Government, because there is little to discuss. There is a service that is on probation still and being rolled forward. We have heard very little evidence, and the Minister's contribution was not as enlightening as I had hoped it would be.
I am grateful that we have been given a summary of objectives for NHS Direct. No one who works in the NHS or uses it objects to any of the objectives given as the leading role for NHS Direct, which is to offer the public a confidential, reliable and consistent source of professional advice on health care, 24 hours a day; to

293WH
enable people to manage many of their problems themselves; to provide a comprehensive service, which is an excellent goal, to help to improve quality and cost-efectiveness—a subject to which I may return—and to allow professionals to develop their role of enabling patients to be partners in self-care. But that has been going on for many years.
The objectives in the Sheffield study have been shared by the wider NHS team for certainly half my professional lifetime. Doctors tried to lead everything and there was a paternalism among adminstrators who thought that they knew best. We now know that team work is important and that unless we take patients with us we will not get anywhere. The objectives are excellent, but there is a great need to do something about consistency, especially in primary care. I will not be anecdotal, but all of us know that there are places where it works and others where it does not. There are models that work in stable populations where there is a maximum turnover of practice population of, say, 10 per cent. a year, as against populations with a turnover of population of 60 to 70 per cent. a year. It makes a difference whether people work within five miles of their doctor's surgery or whether they are weekly boarders, as most Members of Parliament are. Different solutions are therefore required to meet the laudable objectives of the programme. Although I would not necessarily want to extend the use of walk-in clinics to rural areas or run them in parallel with traditional primary care surgeries, they make a tremendous amount of sense in commuter areas and inner cities. There must be local solutions to the delivery of a national agenda that brings quality and access.
It is therefore disappointing that the NHS Direct initiative has been heralded as a great turning point, a new territory and a new beginning. Many people in the national health service have strived to achieve those very objectives over many years, and many have succeeded. The previous Government should be commended for the initiative that funded some of the out-of-hours costs for GP co-operatives, because that gave people in the profession the enthusiasm to set things up locally, to try them out and to make them work. That also involved telephone triage, partly through doctors but also through the use of nurses and computer programmes. That idea is not new, therefore—NHS Direct has built on a lot of the experience that was obtained in primary care under previous arrangements. Some of those solutions failed and had to be bailed out, but most of them developed into successful services, and they succeeded because they were local.
My professional colleagues felt not so much anxious about, or threatened by, the Government's new measures as irritated. Having slogged their brains out to get something off the ground, they were suddenly told, "We are going to impose something from above. This is what we are calling it. It is our new initiative, and this is what it will be." That initiative is either new or a very expensive rebranding exercise. There is anxiety among the profession that a new, nationally imposed initiative may not necessarily work alongside all the excellent cooperative work that is done in many localities.
Liberal Democrats very much supported the transformation from individual fundholders to multi-funds, and we support the subsequent change to primary care groups and primary care trusts, provided
294WH
that there is democratic accountability at trust level. We support health improvement programmes that give communities the opportunity to work together, and allow us to integrate social, environmental, some secondary care and primary care services—especially at the acute, out-of-hours, emergency point.
A lot of work has been done over the past couple of years to bring that together. In my own constituency we have a GP out-of-hours, on-call service which has nurses and outreach workers attached to it and employed by it. We have a mental health crisis intervention service and a social services immediate response unit. People wander around with little buttons around their necks and get instant access to emergency services—and very helpful that is, too. We have the ambulance service and the voluntary sector, which provides a lot of advice through helplines.
The Government had a golden opportunity to give some seedcorn money to bring some of those services together. Instead, we are getting a regional service that will take and filter all the calls and then perhaps send them down to the people who have to work together in their locality. It would have been much more sensible for a Minister to tell the people who have to write the health improvement programme, "We expect you to deliver the objectives that we want provided through NHS Direct. Those include access, consistency and the ability to demonstrate that the service is cost-effective." Those people would have got on and developed their own local solutions. What is more, their output could have been monitored by Ministers and audited for effectiveness. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the pattern that is on offer. People in different parts of the country—my constituents in Hampshire are not unique in this—are told, "No, you've got to start. In time, you might be able to have more autonomy locally." I hope that that is not pathognomonic of a Government who want to control everything, because the solutions that work tend to be local ones.
We have heard of the study that was carried out, and I should briefly mention it. I am amazed that Ministers claim that the interim reports of December 1998 and February 2000 are evidence of anything. They simply set out how much the service is used and whether people like it. They managed to find two disasters in the whole trawl. Although those were very sad and should not have happened, such a trawl is not a scientific piece of work.
It is also amazing that the evaluation of NHS Direct makes no reference to the cost or even the comparative cost of other services. That is not an evaluation of the service. I wonder whether there should be a requirement for Departments that employ outside organisations to evaluate Government activity and initiatives to refer to the Audit Commission or to someone with experience in assessing Government activity before they commission what are, no doubt, expensive studies. It would have made sense in the early pilots—they are the only ones having their second birthday today—to have sensible, hard information from which conclusions could have been drawn about how we reach the objective that we all share. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, there is no argument about the objectives for NHS Direct. They are those for the national health service—to provide a good, cost-

295WH
effective service. However, there is no evidence in what we have before us of whether the imposed solution is the most appropriate.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has inspired a thought in my mind. Would it not be preferable for the Government to ask the Audit Commission to undertake an investigation into the cost-effectiveness of NHS Direct? If the Government were not minded to do that, would the hon. Gentleman join me in taking a bipartisan approach to the Public Accounts Committee to see whether we can get the National Audit Office to examine the matter in terms of the value for money offered?
Dr. Brand: I am grateful for that intervention. That would be an excellent idea. I suspect that the Government have a lot of figures that would help the Audit Commission in such an investigation.
We are not against what NHS Direct is about. It is right that people should become more knowledgeable about their illnesses and possible treatments for them. That is empowerment of people, which is absolutely correct. The use of the internet is imaginative and will definitely take off in the future. However, I am anxious about having a centralised set-up such as NHS Direct and about whether that will lead to a more centralised and formulated national health service which will try to control not only outcomes—we all want those to be excellent—but the methods by which people use the service. If it is a policy option, it may be sensible to have a national common gateway to services, because they vary in each part of the country. However, I would prefer a gateway that was tailored to localities.
The Minister has not touched on the other primary care role—gate keeping—that has probably kept the national health service from collapsing during the past 10 years when it has been starved of funds. It is difficult to maintain a gateway service without some gate-keeping responsibility, but out-of-hours co-operatives appear to have found a working solution. The nurse on telephone triage has immediate access to a doctor, and decisions can be made on clinical grounds and resource allocation grounds. If only one doctor is on call and the other has to be got out of bed, a decision must be made about whom to see first and who can come into the hospital or the accident and emergency department. Such important decisions can be made only by an integrated team whose members know each other and, preferably, work in the same place. That would be extremely difficult to deliver from an NHS call centre that was 150 miles away and manned by people whom one had never met. I must flag up that concern.
I know that the Minister believes in what she is doing. I respect her a great deal, but I wish that she would produce more evidence to justify her faith in the service. We all have faith in the national health service, but the past few years have demonstrated that we cannot live by faith alone. The money is welcome, but we would also like management that can be seen to be in the interests of the service and can deliver in the most cost-effective way.
More important, the service should bring together all the elements that constitute health care. The Minister would agree that health care is about more than just
296WH
ensuring the absence of disease. Much of NHS Direct's work will be reassurance. I started my professional career as an honorary granny on a housing estate in which everyone had two children and £2,200 a year, which fact dates me somewhat. None of those people had family support. Many people remain in that position. A service such as NHS Direct is valuable, but it must fit into the panoply of support. The central initiative arises at a time when local integration is taking place, and it risks stopping rather than promoting that integration.
I do not want to start talking about money, but £80 million could have been used imaginatively and to great effect to improve existing structures that were delivering the services and meeting the objectives. Instead, it will be used to set up a parallel service, which the Minister described as an addition, and that may not be the most cost-effective way of meeting the objectives that we all support.
4.43 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am not sure whether we can describe the debate as heated, but before you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chamber was certainly heated. As you will be here throughout the summer, it might be in your interests and those of hon. Members to know that the central heating system has broken down and that there are problems with the valves. Having served on a Committee that used the Room for a year during the previous Parliament—perhaps the last to consider a private Bill, a railway Bill—I can assure you that this is a hot Chamber in the summer, because of the heat generated by the roof. I am sure that you will want to investigate that.
I am especially delighted to have been called, because I have a long-standing interest in health matters, particularly complementary medicine. It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with the Minister, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand)—a medical doctor—and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
We are talking about a new initiative with a budget of £80 million. I support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said and I support the service's objectives. The four principal objectives are to provide advice on health care 24 hours a day, provide simple and speedy access to information, improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of health service provision and—perhaps the most important in the long term—encourage patients to be partners in their own health care. That is an important concept, although I am not sure whether it is original—I think that the Conservatives introduced it. However, NHS Direct is an important initiative.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who said from the Conservative Front Bench that the key issue is cost-effectiveness. Is the service affordable in the context of other demands? Does it represent value for money? I am not sure that the Minister has answered that question yet.
I also support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said: the Minister could perhaps have said a bit more in her opening speech in support of the new initiative. In

297WH
fact, he questioned whether she really believed in it at all. The Minister referred to the expectations of the public and the extra billions that were being put into the health service. She called it the reinvention of the health service and said that the stakes were going up and that there were 750,000 calls a day to the service.
The Minister told a lovely story about a lady on her way to a wedding, who had a problem that was solved by NHS Direct. She could also have referred to the problem that Elizabeth Thompson faced: she rang NHS Direct, saying that she was suffering from indigestion, and was diagnosed with the symptoms of a heart attack. Those two stories illustrate not only the potential benefits of the new system, but the potential problems.
Another key issue which the Minister mentioned concerned how we should broaden the role of nurses. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge perhaps did not refer to that, which might leave me to deal with it. At Bournemouth, we heard the Government announce that some grades of nurse should have more responsibility. I will not speak for long, because I know that the hon. Member for Colne Valley is anxious to contribute. As a Back Bencher, I know what it is like not having an opportunity to speak when one has waited for a long time.
What advice do the carefully selected nurses on the line at NHS Direct give? If the role of nurses is broadened to give them more responsibility, presumably they can talk about more things. If patients are going to get into a partnership with the NHS through NHS Direct, they want to talk about what they want to talk about.
There is increasing evidence that the public—4 million to 5 million people a year—are talking about and acting on complementary medicine. The Government have really missed a trick. If ever there were a case for new Labour showing that it was progressive and concerned about new things that people outside the House are worried about, surely it is complementary and alternative medicine. One can hardly pick up a Sunday or daily newspaper without a complementary or alternative therapy being described.
The number of patients attending complementary practices represents about 20 per cent. of the public, and about 75 per cent. of the public support NHS access to complementary medicine. The reasons for that are a continuing scepticism about drugs and side effects, a continuing media optimism about and support for complementary therapies and, as a study has shown, the public's growing wish to take more responsibility for health choices. Surely that is identical to the objective set out by the Under-Secretary. It is borne out by evidence on doctor attitudes, which shows that 28 per cent. of GP practices in my own county of Leicestershire provide complementary services in the health service. I should point out that that was under the previous Administration. The figure may have gone down since then, but I must not engage in political knockabout, as we are short of time. Evidence also shows that 20 per cent. of nurses in Leicestershire and 34 per cent. of midwives use complementary therapies.
How does that fit in with NHS Direct? The Under-Secretary may say that we must put safety first. Huge strides have been made in regulating complementary and alternative medicine. Now, if ever, is the time for the
298WH
Under-Secretary to examine how nurses may use alternative services and reduce the pressure on conventional services. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who practised as a doctor before he was elected, used to provide such services: perhaps he still does—I do not want his entire patient list to collapse as a result of my remarks.
How can alternative services be used by NHS Direct to reduce the burden on doctors? I picked up from a House of Commons cafeteria a leaflet stating that powerful stress relief is freely available to Members of Parliament in the form of acupressure treatment, one of several complementary therapies offered at Westminster gym. If that is available to hon. Members, should it not be available to the public?
The British Complementary Medicine Association confirms in a press release its intention to keep improving standards, backing the Department of Health's submission to the Lords Sub-Committee on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. It complains that some further education teachers of such therapies do not have sufficiently high standards. It offers a general advice service on complementary medicine. I am trying to be generous and wish to make a couple more remarks, but I do not want to take too long.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not seeking to limit the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not think that he has an interest in that matter and know that he will be careful about commercials. It may help if he avoids reading certain things into the record.
Mr. Tredinnick: I completely misunderstood you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: You are not the first man to do that.
Mr. Tredinnick: Having served with you on the Liaison Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am appalled to have made such a mistake. I certainly was not trying to make a commercial—that is the last thing that I want to do. I have no interest—registered or otherwise—at all in the British Complementary Medicine Association, but it does represent complementary medicine outside the House. I did not wish to promote it; rather, I was pointing out that regulation is improving.
Homeopathic doctors have been regulated since 1950. Osteopathy has been regulated since 1993, when the Osteopaths Bill was enacted—I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill. I also sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the Chiropractos Act 1994.
A range of measures are being taken to make complementary therapies safer. The Anglo-European College of Chiropractic is applying for designation as a fit and proper institution to receive public funds from the Department for Education and Employment. Shiatsu uses finger-pressure treatment to stimulate the body's energy, described by the Chinese as chi. The Shiatsu Society has high standards and was established in 1981 and has nearly 1,700 members. It has an assessment panel and code of ethics, holds a practitioner register and requires practitioner insurance.

299WH
That is another example of improved standards. Indeed, the previous Government facilitated approved standards for reflexology, aromatherapy, and hypnotherapy. There are now new standards for homeopathy. Last week, at the homeopathic college in Regents Park—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about NHS Direct and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that.
Mr. Tredinnick: I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wanted to draw attention to the fact that five homeopathic bodies have come together with a new form of regulation. The Minister should have some confidence about allowing NHS Direct nurses to refer certain cases to complementary therapists. Complementary therapy has a role to play. For example, stress can be reduced by lavender drops; arnica relieves back pain; Optrex, which contains witch-hazel, helps to relieve eye problems; and breathing exercises can help various ailments. There are tremendous opportunities for nurses, some of whom have experience of such complementary remedies. The next question is whether they will be allowed to use it.
Dr. Brand: There is a problem about legal liability. The hon. Gentleman has explained that some alternative practitioners are registered and may carry insurance, but if an NHS Direct nurse advises seeing an alternative practitioner, the problem is whether she will be liable if the advice proves inappropriate.
Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Another issue is whether there should be a national register of complementary therapists, but we had better not go over that ground.
Many nurses on the NHS Direct helpline have experience of complementary therapies. The Minister should find out what they are and establish whether such nurses could make some referrals. That could relieve the pressure on the surgery of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and those of other doctors. The Government should not miss this trick. It is really worth exploring. So many people could be helped.
4.56 pm
Kali Mountford: I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for being generous with his brevity. We started the afternoon seeming as if we had time for a meandering stroll, but I am now in the 100 yd dash, so I shall attempt to keep my remarks as succinct as possible.
I do not know whether I am the only Back-Bench Member with NHS Direct in my constituency, as I have not studied the constituencies of all hon. Members present. I wish to talk about the experience of patients using NHS Direct and about modernisation of the NHS more widely.
My first point of call has to be the opening of NHS Direct in Wakefield, which serves my constituency. I had the honour and privilege to attend it with the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the
300WH
Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It was an eye-opening experience. The service had been running a little while. Its staff obviously wanted us to see them at their best, but I cannot believe that anyone who attended that day could fail to be impressed by the professionalism of the staff and the experience that they brought to their work. The nurses drew on more than their experience of being nurses; their life experiences were important too. When I attended, there was only one male nurse, and I noticed that all the nurses were a little older, had families and a rich experience of life as well as of the NHS, which made them so suitable for this work.
The new technology was also interesting and I was allowed a little practice. I cannot profess to have been good with it, but it gave me some comfort to know that it worked. For example, I had recently had a tiny accident with my finger, so the staff suggested demonstrating what would have happened if I had called them. It was an enlightening experience. The advice that I would have got, had I been sensible enough to take it, would have made my finger better a lot quicker. As it was, I had a huge finger which throbbed unnecessarily. The process was so logical and precise that even someone like me could avoid making a mistake. The nurses brought their own wealth of experience to the system. Although they used it far better than I could have done, the technology was impressive.
I was particularly impressed by the technology that was used for interpretation. While I was there, a call came in from someone who had English as a second language. The service was very effective, certainly a more effective service than my GPs have available to them. They have to ring the local authority, which has some interpreters available and loans them out from time to time to people who need them. They may have to be booked two weeks or a month in advance because there is such a high demand for interpreters who can do such work. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) shakes his head. I can only tell him of my own experience.
Mr. Hammond: I may be mistaken, and no doubt the Minister will correct me, but my understanding from my visit to NHS Direct was that the interpretation service is that provided by BT and available to anyone. Indeed, the GPs in the hon. Lady's constituency could make use of it, if they wished to, but it is not cheap.
Kali Mountford: That is obviously true. But the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was arguing that, when people went to see their GP, they had a one-on-one experience. Clearly it makes sense for a telephone advice line to use another telephone advice line because the conversation takes place on a linked network. The same would not be true in a GP's surgery. I cannot speak for every practice in my constituency, but few GPs at my practice would do that. They would wait until another individual could attend or refer the patient elsewhere.
A number of people in the local hospital can give such advice and when I attended hospital recently I witnessed that, too. That obviously is beneficial in those circumstances. But we cannot simply denounce the fact that interpreters are available through BT who are

301WH
accessed directly by NHS Direct. There is a definite benefit to that individual whose conversation I witnessed. The hon. Gentleman did not seem enthusiastic about the service earlier. Having seen what I saw, I am.
Hon. Members have taken us on a debate about qualitative studies and hard scientific studies. It has almost been like being back at college and having debates with hard scientists, as I did as a social scientist, about the quality of data and what can and cannot be accepted. I still defend my position that there is genuine benefit from looking at so-called soft results. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Isle of Wight was quite disparaging about the Sheffield study. Sheffield university is a highly thought-of university. Its study gives some genuine results. It does not give the sort of hard data that hon. Gentlemen want, but numbers are not the only issue. People's experience has some merit.
Dr. Brand: I was disparaging not so much Sheffield university's study as the parameters that were set for it. It excluded all costs. Is the hon. Lady really telling us that the NHS should be run on a touchy-feely, feel-good basis or do we need hard information? Why do we have NICE in that case?
Kali Mountford: Obviously there is a place for all sorts of data. I had the impression from the debate so far that the hon. Gentlemen disparaged soft information which could add much to people's experience of the NHS and has a value. That does not mean that we do not have to count the heads too. There is some hard evidence—as a social scientist I would count it as hard evidence—that there has been a genuine change in people's behaviour and their experience of the NHS. Anecdotal evidence may not be what the hon. Gentlemen have valued so far in the debate, but I will give some nevertheless. It is not often that people come foward with thank yous.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Kali Mountford: Time is short, but I will.
Mr. Hammond: It does not seem that short to me. The hon. Lady is making a big issue about hard versus soft evidence. The Government have set out a series of objective tests that institutions such as NICE must use. Does the hon. Lady not think that the right way to allocate scarce resources in the NHS is to ensure that anything that we do is clinically and cost-effective?
Kali Mountford: I have already made this point. There is a place for both. Although I accept that cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness must be measured, those are not the only data that should be examined. The evidence shows that there have been some genuine benefits in a fairly short time and I suggest that that is of value.
Dr. Brand: Would the hon. Lady therefore agree that the Audit Commission might consider this matter, because additional soft evidence is excellent, but is of use only if it is additional to hard evidence, which must include costs?
Kali Mountford: That is an interesting point and not one that I would necessarily throw away with the bath
302WH
water, but it was not the point that I was trying to make. Because they have the Sheffield report in front of them, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Runnymede and Weybridge have concentrated heavily on it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made a suggestion that had some value, but that does not mean that we can simply take the report apart, disparage it and say that it offers nothing to the debate. I do not believe that it does.
I will return to the anecdotal evidence of my constituents who, when a new service is introduced by the Government, do not generally ring me up to tell me about their wonderful experiences. The difference here is that NHS Direct is extremely popular. I do not suggest that everything that Governments do must be popular, but it would be ludicrous to deny that popularity is a measure of success.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady, no doubt inadvertently, has precisely made my case for me. The concern is that the Government have rolled out NHS Direct without sufficient hard evidence of its effectiveness because it is popular and will help them to curry favour with the electorate. That is my concern.
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about sceptics. That was rather cynical. Popularity in itself is not the only thing that should concern us. However, when the first feedback that a Member of Parliament receives from her constituents is a flurry of unsolicited responses about their marvellous experiences, I, for one, will not ignore it. That does not mean that it does not need to be backed up with further evidence. I should be quite surprised if in this, as in all things, the Government do not check progress and continually monitor the service's effectiveness.
This afternoon's debate about the introduction of NHS Direct and what it is doing shows us that we must consider our constituents' response to that service. I shall tell hon. Members about three people. In their different ways they illustrate some points. The first concerns Shirley. She went to her GP. It was her first port of call. She went to the surgery with an ordinary appointment because, like me, she had a swollen finger. It did not seem important or too worrying, but it did not seem to go away and she did not feel too well. The GP precribed some drugs, and she went away feeling happy. Unfortunately, her hand got significantly worse.
Shirley was in agonising pain by the middle of the night, which is when people get especially anxious, having left things all day, hoping that they will feel better. She did not want to disturb anyone and, anxious not to waste anyone's time—many constituents who contact me feel the same—she called NHS Direct. She was told, "You must go to the A and E department in the morning, or even now if the pain is too bad. You are not having the sort of response that we would expect from the treatment that you had. You really need to be looked at again." She went to the A and E department and was admitted with a blood disorder that had not been detected. She stayed in hospital for a fortnight before Christmas and has still not fully recovered.
NHS Direct gave Shirley valuable advice. She might not have taken it; instead, she might have wrapped her hand in ice, thinking that she had something in it and that that was what she should do. We do not know what

303WH
the outcome would have been if she had done that and waited until she could get another appointment with her GP a week later.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady has introduced a new element into the debate. Hitherto, we have been talking about NHS Direct as a first point of contact. However, the hon. Lady seems to be advocating that a patient who is already under the doctor and not responding to treatment should go to NHS Direct instead of going back to the doctor. Is that really an appropriate way to build on the continuity of care in our GP service?
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Patients will make their own decisions. We can tell them, "This must always be your first point of contact," but they will do what they think best in the circumstances. We have talked about NHS Direct as an addition to out-of-hours services, and that is how Shirley was using it.
The second patient to whom I want to refer is Victoria. Hon. Members have already observed that many of the people who call NHS Direct are women, and all three of the cases to which I shall refer involve women. Victoria thought that she had had indigestion for four days. It was very troublesome, and she finally rang NHS Direct, thinking that it was so trivial that she should not disturb her GP but wanting advice about whether to go to the pharmacy to get something like Gaviscon. NHS Direct quickly got an ambulance to her because she was having a heart attack. She was admitted to hospital for some time. Although she is now fully recovered, she must have continued coronary heart care. Her words to me were that NHS Direct had saved her life, because she was going to ignore the gathering pain.
The next story is fairly typical, and concerns my grandson. There was a bad flu epidemic over Christmas, and my daughter thought that her son had flu, like everyone else. He got worse and worse, and she got more anxious. She could not get hold of me because I was here, so she rang her GP. She could not get a response because it was late at night. Three or four calls later, she had spoken to no one at all, just an answering machine. I do know why that was, but she did not feel that was an adequate response.
Dr. BrandI would be concerned if my colleagues were breaking their terms of service. I hope that the answering machine gave a number that she could have rung to obtain out-of-hours advice.
Kali Mountford: The sorry tale is that, when she called that number, she spoke to a person who said that he could not deal with her call for some hours. She was very anxious about her son, who was feeling very poorly by this time. Again, NHS Direct referred her son quickly to a hospital, and he was admitted. He stayed there for a week, having contracted a serious virus. He was very poorly for some time.
Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Lady has spoken eloquently. I sat down a little early in the hope that she
304WH
would have an opportunity to speak. All of us hope that the Minister will respond to the points raised. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear that in mind.
Kali MountfordOf course I will. I was trying to raise some points, but I have taken many interventions from other hon. Members. I am sure that, had I not done so, I would have finished speaking earlier.
The point of all those cases—I could quote dozens of similar stories from my constituency—is that they are typical of the fact that people got a service, often late at night, that they felt was not available to them in some other way and they took different decisions from those that they might have taken. That made a real difference to their life and health. Surely that is what the health service should be about. I am disappointed—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
Dr. Brand: No.
Kali Mountford: I am sorry, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene. It was obviously a trick of the eye.
My enthusiasm for NHS Direct has grown out of not only my experience, but that of my constituents. Obviously, if people want to take the line of hard evidence so that we can add up the number of people employed and the number receiving the service, there is a role for that. But some of this afternoon's evidence caused me some concern. At one point the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that he was comparing apples with apples. To do that, one has to be sure that what constitutes apples is identical, but, in the case of which he spoke, that was not at all clear. After all, in any attempt to compare the cost of the delivery of the service with the delivery of an out-of-hours GP service, I should have to know what was included in the cost make-up. For example, it would make little sense to me to suggest that the cost of a nurse's time is greater than that of a GP's time. The last time that I looked at pay scales, a nurse's salary was significantly less than a GP's. Although that is not the only item included in the scale of costs, it is significant.
Mr. Hammond: I thank the hon. Lady. The point is that GPs are not paid overtime for providing their out-of-hours service. There is a fixed cost to the NHS. Although I understand entirely what the hon. Lady says, does she accept that the Government have identified a need to look at the clinical and cost-effectiveness of any service that the NHS proposes to introduce before valuable and scarce NHS money is spent on it?
Kali Mountford: We return to the issue and the answer is the same. I have never said that that would be a bad idea. What I do think is that, with new NHS Direct pilots—I am not sure whether we can call them that—less than two years old, we ought to rejoice in the experiences of people who have been helped by NHS Direct. Simply focusing on the bums-on-seats approach does not allow a true evaluation of the service so far. We shall have to wait until people tell us that they would have made a different choice. People in the three cases that I outlined earlier benefited from the service.

305WH
The Minister said that evaluation of the NHS in general is not always only about money. I should be most disturbed if the time ever came when NHS Direct could be evaluated only by its cost-effectiveness and emphasis on cost. Effectiveness and experience, yes. Cost must play a role; it would be ridiculous to spend money unwisely. Having said that, focusing on cost alone gives me concern and pause for thought.
Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Lady not recognise my frustration in having to cut exercise programmes on prescription, hydrotherapy on prescription and some alternative therapies available on the NHS purely on cost grounds? Costs cannot be isolated, however worthy one's objectives.
Kali Mountford: I am tempted to go on a detour in my meandering to address that point. We would have to examine existing problems in the NHS and establish why budgets have been so strained and constrained in recent years, and then determine what could be done as a result of the recent Budget.
Mr. Tredinnick: May I tempt the hon. Lady into the 15 minutes' injury time which is available because we voted in the Chamber earlier? Are not many complementary and alternative therapies much cheaper than the drugs offered in the health service?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not relax too much on the basis of injury time. I must point out again that the subject of the debate remains NHS Direct.
Kali Mountford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me.
We spoke earlier about measuring effectiveness, but there has not been much of that in respect of complementary and alternative medicine. The hon. Member for Bosworth talked about regulation, but no one wants an unregulated health service. NHS Direct is regulated and I should like to redraw hon. Members' attention to my own experience of seeing it work for myself. I recall the true professionalism of those nurses, which was equal to that of any others in the health service. They gave me the comfort of knowing that the service would be beneficial and valuable.
I also experienced the service as a whole, rather than just in relation to individual patients. My own grandson was taken ill during the flu epidemic. People were reading newspaper reports of dreadful stresses on NHS Direct. In my own constituency, I undertook to phone around a few GPs, as did the local newspaper. The paper sought stories of disaster, but I sought to find out what was going on. I heard about GPs sitting by the phone waiting for calls. NHS Direct had already taken people to the right place for the right treatment—at the pharmacy, unless their condition had developed to the extent that extra intervention was necessary.
Most flu epidemics can be controlled by proper use of over-the-counter drugs. Not everyone needs a GP in those circumstances. Fluid treatments are well understood in most families, yet people become anxious. The calls to NHS Direct saved a lot of strain on GP services and helped accident and emergency services in hospitals to manage the unexpected winter crisis. In my constituency, the crisis never arrived.
306WH
Only last Friday I discussed a range of issues with my area health authority. I shall not trouble the Chamber with the details this afternoon, but one important point emerged. Although it had not made its own detailed evaluation of what happened that winter and whether NHS Direct made a lesser or bigger contribution, it was clear that the winter period had been managed well. The health authority acknowledged that NHS Direct had made a significant impact on the management of the treatment of patients over that time.
Mr. Hammond: I sense that the hon. Lady is coming to the end of her speech, so I wish to try one more time to establish whether she supports the Government's initiative in introducing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the criteria set by the Government for measuring the appropriateness of treatments and processes in the NHS. If so, does she accept that the same criteria must apply to evaluation of NHS Direct?
Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that different forms of evaluation are mutually exclusive. I can only repeat what I have said already. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is trying to extract a different reply now from the one that I have already given.
The Minister referred to the development of NHS Direct. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was the Secretary of State for Health, I raised a point with him about the further development of NHS Direct's links not only with GPs—those links are already in place—but with the wider community. At that time, there was a meningitis scare in my constituency, and I saw a role for NHS Direct in providing a service to anxious parents.
I was fascinated by some of the Minister's comments about examining what more could be done with pharmacists, and what could be done to deal with teenage pregnancies. Tackling local crises such as meningitis outbreaks, or, as is common in my constituency, cryptosporidium problems relating to spring water, may be part of NHS Direct's future. That would add to NHS services, and I hope that NHS Direct will develop in that way. Notwithstanding what hon. Members said about wanting hard data, my experience of NHS Direct has been good, and my enthusiasm for it remains.
5.25 pm
Ms Stuart: This has been a fascinating debate, which has at times reminded me of a letter that I read in Pulse from a Scottish general practitioner. He went to great lengths to say that NHS Direct was a total waste of time and effort, and that it had made absolutely no difference to his practice. Then I read his address and I thought, "Yes, of course, it wouldn't have, because they don't have NHS Direct in Scotland."
In the light of some of the comments that were made, I want to remind hon. Members what NHS Direct is about. Some may remember the notion of cards. A nice little NHS Direct card says that
NHS Direct is a 24 hour nurse-led confidential helpline providing advice and information on: what to do if you're feeling

307WH
ill; health concerns for you or your family; local health services; self-help and support organisations.
I suggest that one could not attempt to give that card to NICE to assess with its clinical evaluation criteria. We are not comparing apples with apples. The effectiveness of NHS Direct services is assessed while they are used and rolled out, and that means a long time scale.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was absolutely right to say that we need assessment, but that must be carried out in a controlled way which gives proper perspective. All the concerns that the services are changing behaviour need time to be examined. We need longitudinal studies as well as localised in-depth studies. Several assessments are being undertaken. Over Christmas, for example, we picked three sites in which to assess satisfaction. In the west midlands, NHS Direct undertook a study that showed that 95 per cent. of referrals to GPs were appropriate. All those actions must be considered.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: I will, but I will not be so indulgent in allowing interventions as the day goes on, because I must put right several misconceptions.
Mr. Hammond: The point that I have tried to make throughout the debate is not, as the Minister said, that I am hostile to NHS Direct as a concept. By piloting a scheme, the Government imply that they will examine the results and appraise the evidence, and base their decision on that. I have asked the Minister to tell us how that is being done, and to present evidence, because we have not seen any in a form that could justify the decision to roll out NHS Direct nationwide.
Ms Stuart: The concept of using the telephone line as NHS Direct does, and of using nurse triage over the telephone, is extensively established in the United Sates, where it has been tested. It is inappropriate to assume that the service was started without any background. Commercial call centre experience can help in dealing with telephone calls, and clinical experience can also be relied on. The service has been tested for clinical safety, and its record on clinical accidents is exemplary.
At the moment, NHS Direct projects starting up may use call handlers, or have a link with a GP co-operative or ambulance trust. The roll-out is an extension and is responsive to local needs. As we move on and as national procurement is made, we have to decide whether, for example, regional centres should interact with local centres. The roll-out is extremely controlled and project managed, and is continually assessed.
It was argued that the Sheffield evidence was insufficient and that unconvincing data demonstrated that the programme had not been carefully tested. I got the impression that hon. Members believe that NHS Direct should not be on offer because it cannot be measured, even though they accept that NHS Direct is working, the public understand the advice and the service is used extensively. Let me assure hon. Members that the roll-out and triage are tested.
308WH
Comments were also made about the scepticism of some GPs. The service is completely new, and it is always difficult to explain such a thing to someone who has not worked with it. There is a tendancy to liken the service to out-of-hours services and so on. It is, however, an additional service, which brings me to the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who is a responsible general practitioner who feels that he has been doing such things.
Unfortunately, however, not all the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are like him. Some doctors do not have access to such a service, and hon. Members requiring evidence on that should refer to the last edition of the patient survey. The chances of getting out-of-hours service, a GP coming out to visit and access to information vary tremendously across the country. It is not helpful to be told that something would have happened if the money had been granted.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight rightly said that the NHS has always had such ambitions and aspirations. For 50 years, however, no such service was implemented, but it is now being put into operation coherently. Good advice and good systems are available, and there are good examples of integration with the mental health service, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said. We want a health service with national coverage that is responsive and delivers 24-hour service, regardless of where those using it live. Salami-slicing remarks suggesting that such a service was already available are therefore untrue.
There is a misunderstanding about whether the system is diagnostic. The system does not tell people the nature of their disease. If offers a risk assessment of their symptoms and suggests appropriate follow-up and advice. That brings me to a certain New Statesman writer, to whom I shall respond by saying that anyone who rings NHS Direct is at liberty to take or refuse the advice. If people choose not to see their GP, even though advised to do so, that is their choice. Criticising the service is not appropriate if one has not followed its advice.
All the evidence is that those who ring understand the service. When I read the Sheffield evaluation stating that 98 per cent. of NHS Direct callers understand the advice that they were given, my initial reaction was to wonder why that was so remarkable. However, I reconsidered the matter, and my thoughts are relevant to the question about NHS Direct being used as a second opinion. Often, patients seeing their GP do not have enough time or do not take in information fully—a position with which we are all familiar. NHS Direct is sometimes used to get reassurance.
There is nothing wrong or inappropriate in that, but it is not true to say that such seeking of second opinion does not already take place. I talked to an A and E doctor last weekend who, when he worked as a GP and did Sunday duty, would sometimes run into patients who had visited him during the week and had come to the A and E department for a second opinion.
I come now to the NHS Direct cost analysis. We have made extensive use of the experience of commercial call centres. One could make an easy analogy and ask,

309WH
"What does it cost to call the telephone banks, and how does that compare with NHS Direct?" That would not be an entirely accurate comparison, however, because the strength of NHS Direct is that it brings together commercial call centre experience with qualified nurses who take the patients seriously. The nurses have time to speak to the patients at length—the call can last five minutes or half an hour. A mother can ring and say that her child is unwell, and the nurse can ring back half an hour later and ask whether the child is all right. The mother may say that the child still has a high temperature or that he is all right and watching television. That kind of responsiveness, and that ability to give time to the patient, is often overlooked in the delivery of medical services.
That brings me on to the point made by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). Medicine means more than just traditional medicine in the accepted sense—an important part of a decent health care system is the element of care. Patients like NHS Direct because the nurses are responsive and because the programme uses nurses' ability to communicate, which is one of their strongest points and should not be underestimated.
The hon. Member for Bosworth was worried that we were overlooking complementary medicine, but a nurse would never neglect to advise a patient to contact his or her GP or pharmacist, for example, or to see the A and E department. NHS Direct links in with the health information service, which provides the best advice on what complementary medicine is available in which area. Although the nurses cannot perhaps recommend a specific course of action, they can recommend a next step. Nurses on NHS Direct can also provide advice to someone who rings about a bereavement, because they have links with Cruise and the Samaritans.
That brings me to the point that was made about repeat callers. I do not have the statistics in my head, but the percentage of the population that takes up GPs' or acute health service time represents a narrow band. Surprisingly, it almost contradicts the principle that 20 per cent. of the population uses 80 per cent. of the resources. Some repeat calling is appropriate, but there are people who call only for the support and may have mental health or other problems. Again, NHS Direct channels such calls either to the statutory or to the alternative service; and again that is right and proper.
Mr. Hammond: What the Minister says makes sense in a world that is not resource constrained. Given that there are those constraints in the NHS, does the Minister agree with the point that I have tried to make before, that the Government's own criteria of clinical and cost-effectiveness must be applied? The onus is on her to demonstrate that those criteria have been applied in rolling out NHS Direct.
Ms Stuart: Of course, there has been a cost evaluation, and the cost of the calls provided and of billing, the ratio of staffing and the levels of efficiency have been compared with those for other services. However, it is an additional service that will continue to be assessed.
I will not give way any more because a couple of important points must be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) gave
310WH
her moving account of her own and her constituents' life-changing experiences. We should remember that the protocol used by nurses is not like the out-of-hours service, whereby GPs use their long years of experience to give advice. NHS Direct nurses follow a protocol, which is repeatable and clinically safe, to give advice.
My hon. Friend also mentioned meningitis. As anyone who works in the health service knows, meningitis is one of the most fiendishly difficult diseases to recognise in its early stages. It also progresses incredibly quickly. A GP may see a child at 3 pm with just a high temperature. Half an hour later, that child may show the classic symptoms of meningitis. That is accepted. I was taken through how a nurse would explain to a mother how to carry out the glass test for suspected meningitis. A mother would not go to a GP at 5, 6, 7 or 8 pm, but she would be happy to make regular calls to NHS Direct. Therefore, it does provide something new, which the technology simply did not provide previously.
My hon. Friend gave valuable insights into the psychology of the issue. That is for the long term. She drew on her experience as a social scientist. This is hard science, but it is also social science. We operate clinically based, evidence-based medicine. However, we are also irrational human beings; we have fears and uncertainties. NHS Direct is partly aimed at empowering patients to have the confidence to take the next step. We need to focus more on giving people some responsibility for their own health. That means that extra advice is sometimes needed. People need the confidence sometimes to consult their pharmacist, to administer a self-remedy, or to know that it is safe to say, "I'll just stay in bed and see how I feel tomorrow." At the same time, people need the means of checking whether something sounds more urgent. It will no doubt take time to achieve all that, and integration with other services.
The extension of NHS Direct was also mentioned. In Essex, a pilot scheme has begun, whereby NHS Direct and social services work together. The provision of health services must be much more seamless. Health services and social services have to work much more closely together, so NHS Direct is bringing that about as well.
The debate has been extremely valuable, and I hope that hon. Members have listened. I urge anyone who has not used NHS Direct to do so, to gain an understanding of what it is all about. The health service has reached a stage at which the status quo is not acceptable. We need to change. Life styles are changing.
Mr. Tredinnick: One of the things which I wanted to tease out concerns the complementary services. We have nurses in Leicestershire who are trained in aromatherapy, because there is a big centre for that in my constituency, and who can offer sound advice on how to relieve stress and other ailments. What happens when they pick up the telephone? Do they have to go through the health information service, or refer people to A and E, pharmacists, or GPs, or can they make suggestions?
Ms Stuart: They would not make suggestions. People would either ask, for example, where they could access aromatherapy, or say that they needed to see a doctor and ask what was the next step. NHS Direct is a way of modernising the service. It is a telephone line, supported by NHS Online and the printed NHS guides that form a book, produced as a result of the 20 most common
312WH
symptoms presented, which gives advice. NHS Direct is one vital building block in modernising the NHS, empowering the patient and delivering a fast, reliable and modern service.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Six o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks are applied to confirm the identities of new employees in his Department and its agencies. [117705]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department undertakes rigorous recruitment checks on all staff prior to employment. The checks undertaken confirm not only identity, but character, nationality, right to work and employment suitability. Work is currently ongoing to identify, as part of the recruitment checking process, any possible conflicts of interest with new recruits.

  To confirm identify, the checks follow the Cabinet Office guidance. The documentation required to do this vary according to nationality.

  British Nationals require a full 10 year passport, or combination of two other identification documents.

  EC nationals require either a full EC passport or an identity card issued by the EC country.

  Commonwealth citizens require either a full passport issued by the country concerned or a document issued by the Home Office establishing the individual's immigration status in the UK.

  Steps are taken to examine the documentation to verify its authenticity.

  Assurance mechanisms for pre-appointment checks are built into our recruitment process. These include management checks to ensure they are being carried out and our internal audit team regularly carry out their own checks.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, he intends under the draft stakeholder pension regulations, the separate arrangement to charge for individual detached advice to be regarded as a pension contract; and if he will make a statement. [117600]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. It is important that everyone considering a stakeholder pension understands and is confident that the only charge to be taken out of their pension fund will be within the 1 per cent. annual management charge. Schemes may offer financial advice within the 1 per cent. charge if they wish. The draft stakeholder pension regulations are designed to ensure that any contract for the provision of financial advice (and any other services apart from the management of the scheme and its funds) above the 1 per cent. limit must be optional and separate from the pension contract.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single mothers with dependent children are making pension contributions through(a) National Insurance, (b) SERPS and (c) private pension schemes; how many are making no such contributions; and if he will estimate his Department's unfunded liability, assuming present levels of pension payments, in (i) 2020, (ii) 2040 and (iii) 2060. [117530]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are 2.2 million single mothers with dependent children making pension contributions through National Insurance. Of these 1.3 million (60 per cent. of those paying National Insurance) have private pension cover, while 0.9 million (the remaining 40 per cent. of those paying National Insurance) are contributing to SERPS. Around three million single mothers were making no pension contributions.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  2. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

  3. The analysis is restricted to working age employees.

  4. The figures are based on the FRS which is a self-reporting survey. This may lead to an element of inaccuracy as people are not always clear about their pension arrangements.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98.

  The estimated expenditure on National Insurance benefits for pensioners under current legislation is £51.7 billion in 2020–21, £64.8 billion in 2040–41 and £65.8 billion in 2060–61, in 1999–2000 price terms.

  Notes:

  1. The figures on pension payments refer to payments to all pensioners, not to single mothers only.

  2. These figures refer to the expected expenditure on National Insurance benefits for pensioners in the specified years.

  3. The estimates allow for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and exclude HRP in SERPS, but do not allow for any effects of S2P or Stakeholder Pensions.

  4. Income related benefit expenditure on pensioners is not included in the estimates.

  Source:

  The Report by the Government Actuary on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, 1999.

  Pensioners (Savings)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have savings (i) below £3,000, (ii) between £3,000 and £6,000, (iii) below £6,000, (iv) between £6,000 and £12,000 and (v) between £12,000 and £47,100. [117703]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of all pensioner units who have savings

  Thousand

  Categories

  Number

  Below £3,000

  3,500

  Between £3,000 and £6,000

  670

  Below £6,000

  4,170

  Between £6,000 and £12,000

  700

  Between £12,000 and £47,100

  1,200

  Notes:

  1. All amounts are rounded to the nearest 10,000, although estimates are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  531W

  2. The Below £3,000 and Below £6,000 categories include pensioners who have no savings.

  3. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low levels of response, and hence higher levels of imputation, compared to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around 1 in 10 cases. Evidence also suggests some under reporting of capital by respondents.

  4. Pensioner Units are defined as either a single pensioner or a couple where the head of the couple is over the State Pension Age. A couple can be either a married or a co-habiting partnership.

  Source:

  The Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1997–98.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in his Department for each financial year since 1992. [117470]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts gave him on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 392-93W.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the three months' extension of the time limit for claiming Income Support will be allowed in the case where a pensioner's failure to claim earlier can be ascribed to the delay in launching the Government's take-up campaign. [117591]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have no plans to change the current backdating rules.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the annual industrial injuries disablement benefit assessment data for the 1998–99 financial year. [118548]

  Mr. Bayley
  A new model for forecasting caseload and expenditure on Industrial Injuries Benefits has been developed. A comparison of encashment data with new expenditure forecasts for 1998–99 has identified an undercounting of around 6 per cent. in the number of assessments.

  Future assessment forecasts have assumed that this 6 per cent. undercounting is constant over the forecast period.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking in the short term to tackle the problems faced by pensioners whose incomes are marginally above the Minimum Income Guarantee. [116628]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have taken action over a wide front to help all of today's pensioners. Initiatives include Winter Fuel Payments, free eye tests to the over 60s and free TV licences for the over 75s from autumn next year. Also from April 2001, capital limits in the Minimum Income Guarantee for those over 60 will be increased from £6,000 to £12,000. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also announced a review
  532W
  to look at ways to providing further help to pensioners on low incomes and modest pensions and savings who have worked hard to provide for themselves.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the categories of pensioner who will receive letters as part of his Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign. [117873]

  Mr. Bayley
  As part of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) take-up campaign we will be writing to around two million pensioners whom our records suggest are most likely to have underlying entitlement. This targeted group will be pensioners who our pension records suggest have incomes below the MIG level. However, we do not know how many of these pensioners will have capital or other income that could affect their entitlement to benefit.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of(a) new recipients and (b) existing recipients of each main social security benefit who receive payment by automated credit transfer. [117874]

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

  Percentage

  Benefit type

  New customers receipt of ACT

  Existing customers in receipt of ACT

  Child Benefit

  54

  38

  Disability Living Allowance

  33

  36

  Industrial Injuries and Death Benefit1

  n/a

  17

  Income Support

  10

  13

  Invalid Care Allowance2

  n/a

  9

  Incapacity Benefit

  41

  27

  Retirement Pension and Widows Pension

  50

  44

  War Pensions

  56

  53

  n/a = not available

  1 Introduced April 1996

  2 Introduced June 1997

  Notes:

  1. Method of payment analysis for JSA is not available.

  2. The figures are the latest available reflecting the position as at 30 November 1999.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BAe Broughton
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the loans offered by his Department for the BAe project at Broughton in Flintshire was based on an assumption that the National Assembly for Wales will make a parallel grant; and if he will make a statement. [117681]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The launch investment announced on 13 March secured substantial UK involvement in the development of the Airbus A3XX aircraft. No assumption was made by my Department about BAe Systems's
  533W
  application for Regional Selective Assistance to the National Assembly for Wales. Any decision on that application is entirely a matter for the National Assembly.

  Diamond Synchrotron
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often he met the Minister for Science between 1 October 1999 and 19 January 2000 to discuss the synchrotron. [117926]

  Mr. Byers
  Between 1 October 1999 and 19 January 2000 I met my noble Friend the Minister for Science on many occasions to discuss a wide range of topics. Since the New Synchrotron represents the largest single investment in science in the UK for more than a decade it was often included in the topics under discussion.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 277W, on the diamond synchrotron, who represented the French Government in the private discussions in October 1999 and who represented the UK. [117979]

  Mr. Byers
  On 14 October 1999 my noble Friend the Minister for Science had private discussions with the French Minister for Research and Education.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Government Ministers who have visited Sellafield since 1 May 1997. [118013]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment visited Sellafield on 3 September 1997 and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), the then Minister for Energy, visited Sellafield on 15 February 1999.

  Export Guarantees (Romania)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the provision of export guarantees for Romania. [118482]

  Mr. Byers
  I have instructed the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) to make cover available to Mivan Ltd. and Kier International who have won a contract to construct low cost housing and provide water services to villages in Romania. The export credit guarantees will amount to $120 million. In addition, a further $47 million is being provided in support of the project by commercial banks not covered by ECGD. This project will bring benefits to many ordinary Romanians and provide an important export order for Northern Ireland where Mivan is based.

  ECGD has now exhausted cover capacity under its exposure ceiling for Romania. They will review cover policy in the light of the progress Romania makes in negotiating and implementing its IMF backed economic programme and its external debt servicing capability.

  Prototype Fast Reactor Fuels
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make a decision
  534W
  regarding the options for managing the Prototype Fast Reactor fuels at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement. [118483]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK Government are committed to dealing with the remaining liabilities at Dounreay safely, securely and in a way that represents value for money to the taxpayer. In order to achieve the long-term restoration of the site, a solution needs to be found to deal with the remaining fuels, including PFR fuels.

  Following a comprehensive review of options for managing Dounreay PFR fuels, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has identified three options:
  the reprocessing or treatment of all PFR fuels at Dounreay as was originally planned;
  the transportation to Sellafield for reprocessing of the irradiated PFR fuels in the THORP plant and treatment of unirradiated PFR fuels at Dounreay or elsewhere;
  the treatment of all PFR fuels at Dounreay to make them suitable for interim storage at Dounreay for an indefinite period or until a national waste repository is available.

  I am pleased to announce today the start of a public consultation addressing the options for managing these fuels. There is no mandatory requirement to conduct such a consultation exercise, however in the spirit of openness, and given the high level of local interest and the impact it may have on activities at the site, all those with an interest are being consulted. As part of this consultation I will also be seeking the views of the relevant Government advisory bodies. A copy of the consultation package will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation will close on 2 June and I would hope to announce a decision a few weeks later. The results of this consultation will be made available to the public, as will the information supporting the decision. The decision will be taken on safety, environmental and economic grounds.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister in his Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if he will make a statement. [117427]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 385W.

  Enterprise Promotion (West Midlands)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to promote enterprise within disadvantaged areas in the West Midlands region affected by BMW's decisions on Longbridge. [116609]

  Mr. Byers
  I announced the creation of the Rover Task Force on the day after BMW's news that it is to sell the Longbridge plant.

  The Task Force is making good progress and is to produce a report within the next four weeks which looks at the impact of BMW's decision and also makes
  535W
  recommendations about initiatives that may be taken to support workers and to assist the regeneration of the Longbridge area.

  In making its recommendations, I have asked the Task Force to look at:

  Ways in which parts of Longbridge that will not be used by the new owners can be redeveloped to safeguard employment

  Training, re-skilling and support for people who may lose their jobs

  Ways to support and improve the competitiveness of the supplier chain

  Whether local transport services need to be improved to enable people find new work.

  Some of the early actions taken include setting up a Job Shop on site at Longbridge to provide advice to workers and fast-track access to benefit, establishing a telephone hotline for suppliers and employees and the creation of a website that will provide information and signposting for companies and individuals to a range of business creation and support organisations in the region.

  Notwithstanding any recommendations that the Task Force may make in its report to promote enterprise, businesses in many areas of the West Midlands are eligible to apply for Regional Selective Assistance or the Enterprise Grant Scheme. These schemes offer financial support to businesses to boost new business formation, promote growth and help diversification.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Women in Decision-making Roles
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made towards the achievement of Commonwealth Heads of Government target relating to the proportion of women in decision-making roles in political, public and private sectors by 2005. [114778]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: At their 1996 meeting, Commonwealth Ministers of Women's Affairs recommended that member countries achieve a target of no less than 30 per cent. of women in the political, public and private sectors by 2005 and those countries already close to achieving this target should aim for gender parity.

  It is up to individual countries to use ways most appropriate to their national circumstances to achieve these targets and there are no figures available regarding the public and private sector.

  The Commonwealth Secretariat undertook a number of initiatives to assist governments in their efforts to increase women's participation in political decision-making, including:

  advocacy at various level Commonwealth forums and a publication of a collection of the life histories of 33 successful Commonwealth women politicians;

  completion of a series of regional conferences to encourage more women to become involved in local government;

  organising a series of regional symposiums on Gender, Politics and Conflict/Peace for parliamentarians.

  536W
  At the level of local government, which women have often used as a political entry point and training ground, the figures have been more substantial with four countries exceeding the Commonwealth's 30 per cent. target in 1999, as shown in the following table.

  Women's representation in political decision-making in the Commonwealth: Ranking of top 10 counties in 1999–2000

  Percentage

  National Executive/Cabinet (1999)

  1. The Gambia

  30.8

  2. South Africa

  29.6

  3. Grenada

  26.7

  4. Sierra Leone

  26.4

  5. Seychelles

  25.0

  6. Canada

  24.0

  7. United Kingdom

  22.0

  8. Mozambique

  19.6

  9. Botswana

  19.0

  10. Uganda

  18.6

  National Parliament (2000)

  1. South Africa

  30.3

  2. New Zealand

  29.3

  3. Mozambique

  28.0

  4. Australia

  25.0

  5. Seychelles

  23.5

  6. Canada

  22.2

  7. Trinidad and Tobago

  20.9

  8. Bahamas

  19.6

  9. Belize

  18.4

  10. Uganda

  18.3

  Local Government (1999)

  1. Seychelles

  54.0

  2. Uganda

  40.8

  3. India

  33.5

  4. Canada

  30.0

  5. New Zealand

  29.0

  6. St. Lucia

  29.0

  7. United Kingdom

  27.0

  8. Australia

  24.0

  9. Trinidad and Tobago

  20.4

  10. St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  20.0

  Sources:

  Commonwealth Secretariat (1999). Report of the Commonwealth Secretary-General on the Implementation of the 1995 Plan of Action on Gender and Development. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, Gender and Youth Affairs Division. Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (2000). "Women in Commonwealth Parliaments" paper presented at the Commonwealth Workshop on Gender and Democracy, Windhoek Namibia 9-11 February 2000. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, Political Affairs Division.

  Hampshire LEAs (Funding Bids)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by spending initiative for each local education authority in Hampshire(a) the number and value of funding bids submitted to his Department and (b) the number and value of grants made by his Department from (i) the Standards Fund, (ii) Class Size Reduction funds and (iii) other sources of direct funding for schools since May 1997. [115966]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: Tables are today being placed in the Library showing the figures requested for each financial year since May 1997 for Hampshire county council, Portsmouth city council and Southampton county council. For the Standards Fund only, the number and value of the grants are shown in the tables. The number and value of bids under the Standards
  537W
  Fund cannot be disaggregated for each year without incurring disproportionate cost. Allocations are made via a combination of applications from local authorities and formulae based on School Census data. For Class Size Reduction revenue grant, funding levels were agreed with authorities based on their implementation plans.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in the Standards Fund on the equitable distribution of funding for schools in addition to the funding of schools via the standard spending assessment for education. [117133]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. The Standards Fund enables the targeting of funds on specific programmes, areas or schools, to support the Government's drive to raise standards. Local education authorities are required to devolve around 75 per cent. of the Standards Fund to schools. In addition, all maintained schools will receive a share of the additional funding through the £50 million School Standards Grant and the £290 million School Budget Support Grant. Both of these special grants are fully funded by the Government and are only for schools.

  New Deal
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have been employed to date by local councils through the New Deal initiatives for(a) young people, (b) people aged over 50 years, (c) disabled people and (d) lone parents. [117081]

  Ms Jowell
  We do not hold figures which show separately how many people from the New Deal have been employed by local councils.

  However, independent research by the Local Government National Training Organisation has shown that local councils are fully involved in all aspects of New Deal. This research suggests that over 3,500 young people have taken part on New Deal Options including over 900 on the Employer Option. In addition there is evidence to show that local council are employing people under the New Deals for the Disabled, for Lone Parents and for 50+. We continue to work closely with Local Authority Associations and the New Deal Task Force to encourage local council take up of New Deal. The Local Authority Associations themselves are actively promoting the take up of New Deal among their members.

  School Places (South-east)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of the increased demand for school places in the south-east that will come about as a result of the building of an additional 215,000 dwellings in the south-east by 2005. [117792]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for local education authorities to plan and keep under review the supply of school places in the light of proposed housing development, so as to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet demand. The recent announcement of Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east will assist local education authorities in
  538W
  the region to do this. Where an LEA can demonstrate overall growth in the need for school places it may apply to my Department for capital funding.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate his Department has made of the costs to London boroughs of providing education for the children of asylum seekers in 1999–2000. [117930]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is not possible to estimate the total costs of this provision in London boroughs in 1999–2000, as the information is not recorded centrally. However, London boroughs receive funding for the cost of providing education for the children of asylum seekers in the same way as for all other children on the school roll. Children of asylum seekers can also benefit from assistance with the acquisition of language skills through the Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant.

  School Meals
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make provision for free school meals for children whose parents receive Working Families Tax Credit. [117852]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no current plans to extend eligibility for free school meals (which would require primary legislation), but we are working closely with the Child Poverty Action Group on ways of increasing take-up by entitled pupils.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school pupils took school meals in(a) 1979, (b) 1987, (c) 1997 and (d) 1999. [117825]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Prior to 1989, data on school meals were not collected by the Department.

  School meal arrangements in maintained Nursery, Primary and Secondary schools and all special schools—England

  Percentage

  Position as at January of each year

  Pupils who bought a school meal

  Pupils who received a free school meal

  All pupils who took a school meal

  19991

  3—

  14.1

  4—

  19971

  26.8

  15.7

  42.5

  19892

  31.9

  11.2

  43.1

  1 Day pupils only

  2 Includes boarders

  3 Data not available

  4 Not applicable

  Mill Hill County High School
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on admissions policy at Mill Hill County High School, Mill Hill. [117855]
  539W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Following a judicial review against an Adjudicator determination that partial selection at Mill Hill County High School should be reduced, the court made an order on 27 March for a second Adjudicator to make a fresh determination. Mill Hill's admission arrangements for 2000–01 are dependent upon the new determination which will be notified to all parties and published in a local newspaper in the usual way.

  Grammar Schools, Trafford
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement regarding the future of grammar schools in the borough of Trafford. [117860]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have always been clear that we do not wish to see the 11–plus extended. However, we believe it is for parents to decide whether or not they want a vote, whether or not to keep the 11–plus. The decision is and remains one for parents in Trafford as anywhere else.

  Training
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 205W, what definition he uses for training; what amounts will be spent on training in each financial year from 1996–97 to 2001–02; from which budget these are paid; and if he will make a statement. [117829]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Expenditure on training includes expenditure on work-based training for young people, the careers service, adult information and guidance, Career Development Loans and other related programmes. These are all funded from within the DfEE's Departmental Expenditure Limit. This table shows spending on training in England in cash terms for the years requested.

  £million

  1996–97

  972

  1997–98

  975

  1998–99

  963

  1999–2000

  1,178

  2000–01

  1,281

  2001–02

  1,377

  The figures do not include education and training through the New Deal for Young People helping those who enter the Full Time Education and Training option, which we estimate is more than £50 million a year. There is also additional resource being spent on education through the Lottery New Opportunities Fund, although this does not count as Government spending.

  Learning and Skills Council (Wales)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish a Learning and Skills Council for Wales with similar powers to the Learning and Skills Council for England; and if he will make a statement. [115590]

  Mr.Hanson
  I have been asked to reply.
  540W
  The Learning and Skills Bill proposes the establishment of the Council for Education and Training for Wales (CETW). This new body will have broadly the same functions in respect of Wales as the Learning and Skills Council for England, but with some variation to suit local circumstances in Wales. The provisions in the Bill for the CETW are based on the Education and Training Action Plan for Wales, published in March 1999 following public consultation, which was endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales in its plenary debate on 1 February 2000.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 March 2000,Official Report, columns 10-11, on a new national athletics stadium, for what reasons he informed Radio 5 Live on 2 March that he took the decision to earmark at least £60 million specifically for athletics and the future of athletics. [117711]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: No money has been committed. We have established the principle with Sport England that, subject to the details being worked out and a viable application coming forward, the £20 million coming back from the Football Association and up to £40 million which will not now he required for the conversion of Wembley may be available to fund world-class athletics facilities.

  In addition, athletics receives funding from the World Class Performance Programme, which totalled £9.2 million up to September 1999, and Exchequer funding totalling over £460,000 for the last calendar year.

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will establish a lottery-supported fund available to organisations promoting sporting events of international status in the United Kingdom which could share the risks associated with such projects with this fund. [117633]

  Kate Hoey
  This Government recognised the importance of staging major international sporting events in this country in our manifesto for the 1997 general election. UK Sport launched its Major Events Strategy in February 1999, with Lottery funding in place, supporting events through UK Sport's World Class Events Programme. This is now providing a coherent framework of support and experience for organisations bidding for and staging events throughout the UK. One of the recent fruits of this coherent approach has been UK Athletics' successful bids for the 2003 World Indoor Championships and the 2005 World Athletics Championships.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr.malcolm Bruce
  To ask the secretary of state for scotland what was the amount of non-domestic rates
  541W
  (a) collected from and (b) distributed to each local authority in Scotland for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [117629]

  Dr. Reid
  The amounts of non-domestic rates collected from and distributed to Scottish local authorities for years 1996–97 to 1998–99 are shown in the table.

  Non-domestic rates collected by and distributed to authorities: 1996–98 to 1998–99

  Contributable

  Distributable

  1996–97 NDRI

  Aberdeen City

  86,909,230

  56,050,000

  Aberdeenshire

  44,835,817

  57,834,000

  Angus

  17,881,385

  28,589,000

  Argyll and Bute

  24,905,858

  23,409,000

  Clackmannanshire

  10,409,625

  12,497,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  27,831,687

  37,812,000

  Dundee City

  39,584,602

  38,695,000

  East Ayrshire

  16,508,548

  31,608,000

  East Dunbartonshire

  14,695,819

  28,308,000

  East Lothian

  24,079,491

  22,206,000

  East Renfrewshire

  9,699,357

  22,314,000

  Edinburgh, City of

  169,526,631

  113,487,000

  Eilean Siar

  4,482,845

  7,498,000

  Falkirk

  45,196,145

  36,464,000

  Fife

  99,952,162

  90,079,000

  Glasgow City

  219,409,650

  159,507,000

  Highland

  51,131,606

  53,085,000

  Inverclyde

  14,111,817

  22,866,000

  Midlothian

  11,729,201

  20,469,000

  Moray

  18,100,377

  22,347,000

  North Ayrshire

  34,462,286

  35,584,000

  North Lanarkshire

  63,138,676

  83,596,000

  Orkney

  5,962,906

  5,068,000

  Perth and Kinross

  31,684,643

  33,770,000

  Renfrewshire

  43,513,331

  45,318,000

  Scottish Borders

  16,299,596

  27,042,000

  Shetland

  15,915,411

  5,853,000

  South Ayrshire

  25,664,737

  29,257,000

  South Lanarkshire

  63,847,135

  78,671,000

  Stirling

  23,350,956

  20,983,000

  West Dunbartonshire

  20,572,119

  24,857,000

  West Lothian

  36,658,220

  37,912,000

  Scotland

  1,332,051,869

  1,313,035,000

  1997–98 NDRI

  Aberdeen City

  92,077,265

  56,571,000

  Aberdeenshire

  45,794,645

  58,484,000

  Angus

  17,667,960

  28,856,000

  Argyll and Bute

  23,925,238

  23,574,000

  Clackmannanshire

  10,604,813

  12,604,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  31,037,389

  38,184,000

  Dundee City

  39,377,604

  38,987,000

  East Ayrshire

  20,664,896

  31,784,000

  East Dunbartonshire

  14,936,428

  28,691,000

  East Lothian

  24,224,075

  22,624,000

  East Renfrewshire

  8,102,884

  22,758,000

  Edinburgh, City of

  179,348,233

  115,545,000

  Eilean Siar

  4,636,830

  7,497,000

  Falkirk

  41,533,242

  36,867,000

  Fife

  93,983,725

  90,774,000

  Glasgow City

  203,939,379

  159,662,000

  Highland

  50,237,633

  53,777,000

  Inverclyde

  15,684,943

  22,897,000

  Midlothian

  11,998,115

  20,623,000

  Moray

  19,300,029

  22,500,000

  North Ayrshire

  35,580,437

  36,020,000

  North Lanarkshire

  56,933,088

  84,355,000

  Orkney

  5,639,008

  5,130,000

  Perth and Kinross

  32,776,628

  34,290,000

  Renfrewshire

  44,499,634

  46,042,00

  Scottish Borders

  17,340,330

  27,418,000

  Shetland

  14,235,802

  5,961,000

  542W

  Non-domestic rates collected by and distributed to authorities: 1996–98 to 1998–99

  Contributable

  Distributable

  South Ayrshire

  26,253,041

  29,579,000

  South Lanarkshire

  57,732,714

  79,367,000

  Stirling

  23,435,752

  21,242,000

  West Dunbartonshire

  22,853,790

  24,859,000

  West Lothian

  40,843,193

  38,607,000

  Scotland

  1,327,178,743

  1,326,129,000

  1998–99 NDRI

  Aberdeen City

  101,318,328

  59,112,000

  Aberdeenshire

  49,466,288

  61,879,000

  Angus

  19,568,920

  30,141,000

  Argyll and Bute

  28,299,338

  24,716,000

  Clackmannanshire

  10,495,047

  13,280,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  31,789,211

  40,159,000

  Dundee City

  42,071,071

  40,880,000

  East Ayrshire

  21,876,160

  33,289,000

  East Dunbartonshire

  14,797,539

  30,133,000

  East Lothian

  24,911,565

  23,981,000

  East Renfrewshire

  10,126,348

  23,965,000

  Edinburgh, City of

  186,151,389

  122,123,000

  Eilean Siar

  4,632,944

  7,858,000

  Falkirk

  44,466,106

  38,918,000

  Fife

  101,297,014

  95,038,000

  Glasgow City

  231,326,059

  167,718,000

  Highland

  53,075,991

  56,783,000

  Inverclyde1

  16,455,511

  23,698,000

  Midlothian

  12,944,938

  21,777,000

  Moray

  19,672,200

  23,538,000

  North Ayrshire

  36,854,012

  37,961,000

  North Lanarkshire1

  68,164,545

  88,682,000

  Orkney

  6,209,691

  5,387,000

  Perth and Kinross

  32,924,976

  36,070,000

  Renfrewshire1

  46,023,557

  48,580,000

  Scottish Borders

  18,548,281

  28,868,000

  Shetland

  12,351,868

  6,263,000

  South Ayrshire

  28,296,107

  31,189,000

  South Lanarkshire

  69,496,242

  83,651,000

  Stirling

  26,955,963

  22,515,000

  West Dunbartonshire1

  22,396,416

  26,054,000

  West Lothian

  44,096,478

  41,022,000

  Scotland1

  1,437,110,103

  1,395,228,000

  1 1998–99 audited contributable amount not yet available—based on most recent estimate received from council.

  Collection and distribution of non-domestic rates in Scotland became a devolved matter from 1 July 1999.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the consultation exercises so far undertaken to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed MOX Plant (SMP) at BNFL Sellafield. [114796]

  Mr. Meacher
  In November 1996 BNFL sought approval from the Environment Agency to bring the Sellafield MOX plant into operation. The Environment Agency consulted on issues associated with the justification of the MOX plant, including its environmental impact, between February and April 1997.

  Respondents to this consultation raised a number of environmental issues and, in addition, some expressed concern about the lack of information provided by BNFL
  543W
  on the economic case. Consequently, the Agency engaged a firm of financial consultants, PA Consulting Group, to carry out an independent assessment of BNFL's economic case for the plant.

  The Environment Agency then carried out a second round of consultation between January and March 1998, based on a public domain version of the PA report—which excluded certain material on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  The Agency issued their draft decisions on the operation of the MOX plant on 2 November 1998. By this stage, Ministers had received a number of requests for them to use their powers of `call-in' to intervene in the Agency's decisions.

  In looking at the advice from the Environment Agency and the representations they had received, Ministers decided that the amount of information excluded on the grounds of commercial confidentiality from the public domain version of the PA report was more than strictly necessary, and that there had been developments in the potential market for MOX fuel which led them to consider that there should be further public scrutiny of BNFL's business case. Ministers therefore consulted again between May and June 1999 on the basis of a significantly greater disclosure of information on the economic case and were considering the responses to this consultation when data falsification at the Sellafield MOX Demonstration Facility first came to light.

  The implications of the data falsification will of course be fully considered before Ministers make their final decisions.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expect to publish the results of their last round of consultations on the operation by BNFL of its MOX plant (SMP) at Sellafield. [114816]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: Ministers will announce their decisions only when they have fully considered all responses to the consultation exercise and the implications of all recent evidence, including the data falsification incident at the Sellafield MOX Demonstration Facility.

  Ministers will announce their decisions as soon as they are made. At the same time my Department will publish a decision document, setting out the reasons for their decisions in full.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors are currently preventing BNFL from operating commercially the Sellafield MOX plant (SMP). [114817]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are still considering whether to intervene in the Environment Agency's draft decisions on the Sellafield MOX plant. They will make a decision only when they have examined all the evidence before them, including the responses to the consultation exercise held by Ministers last year and the implications of the recent data falsification incident at the Sellafield MOX Demonstration Facility.
  544W
  Only if Ministers decide not to intervene will BNFL be free to proceed to the next stage of commissioning of the plant and its subsequent operation, subject also to licence approval by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions were reached in the PA Consultancy Group report on the BNFL proposal to operate the MOX plant (SMP) at Sellafield. [114818]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 March 2000]: The report by PA Consulting Group on the economic case for the Sellafield MOX plant formed part of the consultation package on which comments were invited, copies of which were placed in the House of Commons Library on 11 June 1999.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, columns 322-23W, relating to the public-private partnership contracts for the London Underground, what arrangements were made for potential contractors or consortia of contractors not specifically asked to consider submitting a bid for the work to ascertain the details of the work to be bid for; how potential contractors in other European Union countries were able to ascertain the work to be bid for; if the arrangements complied with European Union requirements; and if he will make a statement. [116686]

  Mr. Hill
  The invitation to pre-qualify for the London Underground service contracts was published in the usual way, in the Official Journal of the Economic Communities (OJEC References 1999/S 118-87811EN and 1999/S 25408995). The invitation was open to all potential contractors and full details were supplied to those who responded to the OJEC notice and executed a confidentiality and tender process agreement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total sum expended by London Underground Ltd. on the recent re-conditioning of Piccadilly line trains; what the further sum of £500 million for Piccadilly line trains referred to in his answer of 2 March 2000,Official Report, columns 331-32W relates to; what the estimated life of the proposed and current Piccadilly line stock is; and if he will make a statement. [117268]

  Mr. Hill
  London Underground are currently spending £136 million on re-conditioning the Piccadilly line rolling stock. They estimate that this will extend the effective working life of the rolling stock to 2014.

  The £500 million referred to in the question was taken from a briefing document published by London Underground when the Public Private Partnership competition was launched in June 1999. They were LU's estimate of how much they then believed it would cost to implement the performance regime under development of the first 15 years of the PPP. The new rolling stock is anticipated to have a life expectancy of 40-50 years.
  545W
  Of course, under the terms of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for LU, infrastructure companies will be required to implement a combination of specific projects and performance enhancements specified in output terms. The PPP will not specify particular amounts of money to be spent, nor particular works to be carried out. It will be for bidders to decide what they have to do to meet the performance specification for each infrastructure company.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce performance indicators for road safety in local authority transport plans; and how he intends to evaluate their effectiveness. [116704]

  Mr. Hill
  The guidance on full local transport plans (LTPs), published on 27 March, advises local authorities that their LTPs must include a set of indicators and targets for measuring performance against objectives. The guidance describes the indicators for road safety. These will be used for monitoring progress towards the local casualty reduction target. Authorities are required to submit their LTPs for 2001–02 to 2005–06 by 31 July. In subsequent years, authorities will be required to submit annual progress reports. The first progress reports will be submitted in July 2001. Authorities will report on the indicators contained in the plan and progress towards achieving the targets set.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in rank order the figures for killed and seriously injured road casualties per 100,000 head of population by county and unitary authorities in England for the last five years. [116703]

  Mr. Hill
  The rates requested are shown for 1998, the most recent year for which figures are available, based on area boundaries at the beginning of that year. However, there have been a number of changes in administrative areas during the preceding four years. This would make it difficult to produce a comparison over time and such analysis would involve disproportionate time to provide.

  Road accident casualties by county and unitary authority (UA): 1998

  Rate per 100,000 population

  County/unitary authority

  Killed or seriously injured

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  36

  City of Leicester UA

  37

  Greater Manchester

  39

  Berkshire

  40

  Stoke on Trent UA

  40

  South Gloucestershire UA

  40

  Tyne and Wear

  41

  Southampton UA

  43

  Luton UA

  43

  Middlesbrough UA

  43

  City of Bristol UA

  44

  Poole UA

  45

  Durham (excludes Darlington)

  48

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  48

  Gloucestershire

  48

  546W

  Road accident casualties by country or unitary authority (UA): 1998

  Rate per 100,000 population

  County/unitary authority

  Killed or seriously injured

  City of York UA

  50

  Swindon UA

  51

  Staffordshire (excludes Stoke on Trent)

  51

  North Somerset UA

  51

  Stockton on Tees UA

  52

  Milton Keynes UA

  54

  Merseyside

  54

  South Yorkshire

  56

  Devon

  56

  Oxfordshire

  57

  Suffolk

  58

  Bournemouth UA

  58

  Portsmouth UA

  58

  Darlington UA

  58

  Buckinghamshire (excludes Milton Keynes)

  59

  Hartlepool UA

  59

  Leicestershire (excludes Rutland and City of Leicester)

  60

  City of Derby UA

  61

  Brighton and Hove UA

  61

  West Yorkshire

  64

  Kingston upon Hull UA

  69

  Cornwall

  71

  Somerset

  73

  Northumberland

  74

  Isle of Wight UA

  76

  Hampshire (excludes Portsmouth and Southampton)

  76

  West Sussex

  78

  Kent

  78

  West Midlands

  78

  Essex

  83

  Wiltshire (excludes Swindon)

  85

  Derbyshire (excludes City of Derby)

  86

  Bedfordshire (excludes Luton)

  86

  Surrey

  88

  Lancashire

  88

  Dorset (excludes Poole and Bournemouth)

  89

  North East Lincolnshire UA

  92

  Norfolk

  93

  Greater London

  96

  Hereford and Worcester

  97

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  97

  Cambridgeshire

  97

  Shropshire

  102

  Cheshire

  105

  Nottinghamshire

  108

  Cumbria

  109

  North Lincolnshire UA

  110

  Hertfordshire

  111

  Northamptonshire

  116

  Rutland UA

  120

  East Sussex (excludes UA)

  122

  Warwickshire

  125

  Lincolnshire

  126

  North Yorkshire (excludes City of York)

  165

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to introduce a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement. [117586]

  Mr. Mullin
  We issued a consultation paper last year setting out detailed proposals. Key conclusions and a summary of responses will be published in due course.

  Water Meters
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the avenues open to members of the public, whose accommodation has no rateable value and who therefore cannot have a water meter installed, when they cannot reach agreement with a water company on the level of their bill. [117314]

  Mr. Mullin
  Any customer may have a water meter fitted for their home free from 1 April, unless this is impracticable or excessively costly, in which case the company should offer another alternative basis of charging. The answer that I gave to my hon. Friend's question on 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 322W, sets out the avenues open to customers who do not want to have a meter fitted but are not happy with the company's proposals for setting their water charges.

  Listed Buildings (London)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities are to be given to the(a) mayor and (b) Greater London Assembly with regard to matters relating to (i) Grade I, (ii) Grade I* and (iii) Grade II listed buildings, respectively. [117719]

  Mr. Hill
  As part of the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS), the Mayor may frame policies for the conservation and protection of London's built environment, working closely with English Heritage (EH) and the boroughs. The Assembly will be consulted by the Mayor before formal public consultation on the draft strategy.

  Primary responsibility for dealing with listed building consent applications remains with the boroughs, in consultation with EH. Neither the Mayor, nor the Assembly will have a role in deciding applications.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons he plans to amend the regulations in Greater London to permit consent for works to Grade II listed buildings to be handled by individual London boroughs. [117720]

  Mr. Hill
  At present, most applications for listed building consent for all grades of listed building within Greater London must be made to the relevant London borough who must in turn notify English Heritage. Also, certain cases are referred by English Heritage to the Secretary of State. However, since the Greater London Council was abolished, English Heritage has been working with the London boroughs to build up their expertise in relation to such applications. We are satisfied that the London boroughs are now in a position to take on full responsibility for determining the majority of listed building consent applications on a similar basis to the arrangements outside London. We therefore issued proposals for consultation last year for changes that would lead to a significant reduction in the number of listed building cases that would need to be notified to English Heritage and the Secretary of State and thus enable decisions on applications to be made more quickly. Copies of the consultation paper 'London Heritage Notifications' were placed in the Libraries of both Houses at the time. English Heritage would, however, continue to be consulted on applications for works to Grade I and
  548W
  II* buildings and works to certain categories of Grade II buildings. We plan to announce shortly how we intend to proceed.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the allocation of resources to tackle fuel poverty in the five years from April 1997. [116611]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty, particularly among those households most at risk to ill health due to cold homes; the old, children, the disabled and the chronically sick. The two main causes of fuel poverty are low income and poor energy efficiency in the home.

  The Government's main measures to help households more easily meet their heating costs are as follows.
  Winter Fuel Payments were introduced in the winter of 1997. They provide help to eligible older households towards their winter fuel costs. The total expenditure allocated is as follows.

  Winter Fuel Payments

  Financial year

  £million

  1997–98

  200

  1998–99

  200

  1999–2000

  760

  2000–011

  1,400

  2001–021

  1,200

  1 Estimated

  Cold Weather Payments provide help towards additional heating costs to eligible people when there is a spell of cold weather in their local area. Since 1997 to date the amount spent on Cold Weather Payments is estimated to be around £1.7 million. As the amount spent is purely dependent on the weather it is not possible to provide an estimate of future expenditure.

  Reduction in the level of VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. from September 1997. The estimated cost of this measure is £450 million a year, so that by 2002 the total cost is likely to be about £2,025 million. The benefit to a typical customer is a reduction in their energy bills of £16.50 a year.

  In addition the measures taken to liberalise energy markets have contributed to reduced energy prices for households, and are expected to continue to do so. Electricity prices paid by domestic consumers fell, in real terms, by 14 per cent. between the 2nd quarter of 1997 and the last quarter of 1999, while gas prices fell, in real terms, by 12 per cent. over the same period. Lower energy prices have significantly helped low income households with the cost of keeping warm. However it is not possible to quantify the resources used in this work.

  The energy efficiency of homes is improved through both specific programmes such as the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, and also as part of wider housing programmes. The details of each programme are as shown.
  549W
  Specific energy efficiency programmes

  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) provides energy efficiency improvements to the homes of eligible households. The scheme was devolved to the Scottish Executive on 1 July 1999 and to the Welsh Executive from 1 April 2000. The scheme in England is due to be radically overhauled from I June, with New HEES providing packages of heating and insulation improvements to households and focusing on the private sector where nearly 70 per cent. of the fuel poor in England are found. The total gross budget for HEES, after allowing for moneys to the devolved administrations, is as shown.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  76.1

  1998–99

  76.2

  1999–2000

  175.3

  2000–014

  2122.8

  2001–024

  3153.8

  1 This includes about £1.5 million spent under the scheme in Scotland from I April to 30 June 1999. It excludes the further £4.4 million transferred to the Scottish Executive in respect of the period 1 July 1999 to 31 March 2000.

  2 In addition, £9.6 million and £6.3 million have been transferred to the Scottish and Welsh Executives.

  3 In addition, £13.3 million and £8.9 million have been transferred to the Scottish and Welsh Executives.

  4 Allocated

  Government funded programmes operated by the Energy Saving Trust also improve the energy efficiency of both fuel poor households and others. The expenditure on such programmes is as shown.

  DETR funded programmes operated by the Energy Saving Trust

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  12.0

  1998–99

  10.6

  1999–2000

  12.5

  2000–011

  15.1

  2001–02

  2—

  1 Allocated

  2 Under consideration

  Main housing programmes

  The Government have also substantially increased the resources available to local authorities over the lifetime of this Parliament, reversing the reductions planned by previous government. The extra resources in the first three years, 1997–98 to 1999–2000, were allocated through the Capital Receipts Initiative (CRI). Information collected to monitor the impact of the CRI found that around a quarter to a third of the work on local authorities' own stock financed from this initiative lead either directly or indirectly to improvements in energy efficiency. If this were replicated across all local authority housing capital expenditure on its own stock this would equate to around £400-500 million per annum. The total housing capital allocations to local authorities through the Housing Investment Programme (HIP) and Capital Receipts Initiative, are as shown.

  Housing capital allocations to local authorities

  Financial year

  £ million

  1997–98

  11,050

  1998–99

  21,338

  1999–2000

  31,408

  2000–01

  2,090

  2001–025

  42,300

  1 This includes £174 million through the Capital Receipts Initiative.

  2This includes £569 million through the Capital Receipts Initiative.

  550W

  3 This includes £570 million through the Capital Receipts Initiative.

  4 This is planned credit approvals total announced in the CSR in July 1998. Resources for 2001–02 will be allocated in December 2000.

  5 Allocated

  HIP allocations are the aggregate of housing annual capital guidelines and allocations for Private Sector Renewal and Disabled Facilities Grants.

  The energy efficiency of low income households is also likely to be improved through some of the regeneration schemes funded by DETR. These cover a wide range of activities depending on local need, and it is not possible to quantify the precise expenditure on energy efficiency improvements.

  To support the installation of energy efficiency measures, the Government also reduced the level of VAT from 1 July 1998 on work carried out on low income households through eligible schemes such as HEES. The revenue cost of the reduction was £8.5 million a year. This year's Budget extended the reduced rate at a total cost of £35 million a year. By 2002, the total cost is estimated at £85 million.

  The Government are also introducing provisions to enable lessors to claim capital allowances on their investment in boilers, radiators and controls installed in residential properties under the Affordable Warmth Programme. The Programme will operate from 2000 to 2007, with the aim of helping up to one million low income households benefit from improved energy efficiency. Estimate that Government assistance from this measure up to April 2002 will be approximately £10 million.

  In addition to Government energy efficiency programmes, the Director General for Electricity, and now Director General of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, has, since 1994, set Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance requiring the public energy suppliers to encourage and assist customers with energy efficiency measures. Around two thirds of this help has gone to pensioner and low income families. From this year the total size of the programme has been doubled to £50 million a year with the obligation placed on both the public gas and electricity suppliers.

DEFENCE

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Vetting Agency for 2000–01. [118375]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Vetting Agency carries out some 200,000 personnel security vetting checks and investigations each year. Since it was launched in 1997, the Agency has embarked on an ambitious modernisation programme aimed at creating a highly responsive, efficient and integrated organisation, exploiting the capabilities of modern information technology to the benefit of its customers. FY2000–2001 will be a period of particular upheaval as the Agency begins to collocate its four separate vetting units to York. Collocation involves much more than the move on to a single site. New accommodation, processes, IT systems, and a substantially new workforce will be introduced, as the existing vetting units close. Consequently, while the quality of its outputs should be unaffected, it is expected that there will be a notable reduction in the Agencies
  551W
  timeliness and efficiency performance during this period compared to last year. The Chief Executive has been set the following Key Targets:

  Quality
  Key Target 1: At least a 90 per cent. success rating in dealing with Cases Denied and Withdrawn in Service, and zero Serious Errors.

  Timeliness
  Key Target 2: To complete 78 per cent. of Security Checks within 42 days.
  Key Target 3: To complete 76 per cent. of Counter Terrorist Checks within 42 days.
  Key Target 4: To complete 90 per cent. of all Developed Vetting clearances within 26 weeks.
  Key Target 5: To achieve average times for Counter Terrorist Checks and Security Checks of 35 and 31 days respectively, and to complete Developed Vetting clearances on average within 15 weeks.

  Efficiency
  Key Target 6: To achieve a Unit Cost of Output of £32.37.

  I will arrange for copies of the Corporate Plan to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Naval Manning Agency
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Manning Agency for 2000–01. [118376]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Key Targets that have been set for the Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency (NMA) for the financial year 2000–01 are as set out. The targets build upon progress made by the Agency since it formed on 1 July 1996.

  1. Deployment:

  a. The percentage of filled Officer billets to be: 94 per cent. or greater.

  b. The percentage of filled rating billets to be: 91 per cent. or greater.

  c. The percentage of filled other rank billets to be: 88 per cent. or greater.

  2. Manpower Planning:
  The variation of Strength to Requirement to be: between zero and minus 2 per cent.

  3. Career Management:

  a. The percentage of Officers receiving the required Notice of Change to be: 60 per cent. greater.

  b. The percentage of ratings receiving the required Notice of Change to be: 98 per cent. or greater.

  c. The number of occurrences where Minimum Time Ashore criteria are met to be: 99 per cent. greater.

  4. NMA Corporate Efficiency:

  a. To achieve strict control of NMA manpower overheads to within plus or minus 2 per cent. of the baseline established for manpower overheads as at 1 April 2000.

  b. To carry out two Benchmarking Exercises.

  c. To achieve a Customer Confidence Score of 62.

  552W
  5.Financial

  a. Production of Annual Accrual Accounts to be completed by September 01.

  b. To operate the NMA within its 2000–01 Net Cash Allocation for Operating Activities (at 1999–2000 prices) of £164.8 million.

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 2000–01. [118377]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) for 1999–2000:

  To deliver personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations) with 4 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  To obtain 96 per cent. "Satisfactory" assessments from the employers of NRTA trainees.

  To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in Career Training and 97 per cent. in examined Pre-joining training.

  To reduce the variance between RNR Trained Strength and Total Requirement to 35 per cent.

  To retain tasked capacity while operating NRTA within its 200001 resource allocation.

  To achieve net benefits of £11.9 million in FY 2000–01 from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Ltd.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the principal concerns expressed by AWE staff in relation to the potential takeover of sensitive work responsibilities by an American company. [116242]

  Mr. Spellar
  AWE ML is not an American company but does include Lockheed Martin among the three equal partners making up the consortium. The consortium operating AWE up to 1 April was also made up of three partners, one of which is owned by an American parent company.

  When my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement visited Aldermaston recently members of staff asked her a number of questions only one of which expressed concern over Lockheed Martin's involvement with the establishment. That question related to Lockheed Martin's ability to meet UK safety standards.

  In a message delivered on 4 April 2000 to their members who worked at AWE the AEEU, GMB, IPMS, MSF, TGWU and UCATT trade unions described the decision to proceed with the new contract as "controversial but correct".

  Heavy-lift Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long would it take for (i) an Antonov 124 and (ii) a Boeing C-17 to carry an equal amount of supplies, based on the maximum that the lesser carrying aircraft can carry, to(a) East Timor and (b) Mozambique. [116501]
  553W
  Dr. Moonie
  The estimated flight times to East Timor and Mozambique for the two types of aircraft would be similar, since both cruise at roughly the same airspeed. En-route, both aircraft would require refuelling stops of about two hours and one crew change. However, the C-17 is capable of being refuelled in the air and, therefore, apart from having to land for a crew change, it could avoid the intermediate refuelling stops.

  The flying time to East Timor is about 26 hours. Two stops would be required by the An-124 and four stops by the C-17. The total journey time would be 30 hours for the An-124 and 34 hours for the C-17 (or 28 hours with air to air refuelling for the C-17).

  The flying time to Mozambique is about 15 hours. The An-124 would require one stop and two for the C-17. The total journey time would be 17 hours for the An-124 and 19 hours for the C-17 (or 17 hours for the C-17 with air to air refuelling).

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) volume and (b) weight of cargo a single (i) Antonov 124 and (ii) Boeing c-17 could have taken to (a) East Timor and (b) Mozambique. [116500]

  Dr. Moonie
  The An-124 and the C-17 would have the same cargo capabilities to East Timor as they would to Mozambique; these would be:

  (i)An-124 could carry (a) a volume of 1,160 cu m or (b) a weight of 120 tonnes.

  (ii)C-17 could carry (a) a volume of 580 cu m or (b) a weight of 76.8 tonnes.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of experiments carried out on human volunteers at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in the last four years. [117091]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 6 April 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about studies undertaken by the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  During the last four years, the types of studies carried out on human volunteers at Porton Down have fallen into two broad categories. Firstly, there are studies concerned with the evaluation of the physical and psychological burden imposed on service personnel by wearing various items of personal protective equipment, such as the NBC suit and the current in-service respirator, under various environmental conditions.
  Secondly, there are studies that evaluate the effects of various licensed drugs on military performance. These may be given to service personnel either as protection or treatments in the event of exposure to chemical or biological agents on the battlefield. The effects that are investigated in such studies would be trivial or go unnoticed in a civilian population but may be important in a military context because they could possibly degrade overall performance. An example of this type of study is the evaluation of the effects of antibiotics on the performance of those involved in tasks such as map reading.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  CVR(T) Tank
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the CVR(T) tank is due to be withdrawn from service. [117130]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) is planned to be withdrawn between 2006 and 2014 as it is replaced by the next generation of vehicles.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons exemptions from procurement rules have been granted to the David Brown Group for the supply of transmissions for the CVR(T) tank. [117135]

  Dr. Moonie
  The David Brown Group has been granted no exemptions from procurement rules for the supply of transmission mechanisms for the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)).

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the conversion kits needed to convert the CVR(T) tank from petrol to diesel(a) will be issued free to the contractor and (b) will be purchased from his Department. [117132]

  Dr. Moonie
  The conversion kits are being procured by the Department and will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment to the contractor.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place copies of the invitations to tender regarding the conversion of the CVR(T) tank from petrol to diesel in the Library. [117129]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Invitation To Tender document contains classified information. I am withholding its release in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for additional improvements to the CVR(T) tank. [117131]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) (CVR(T)) fleet has been subject to many improvements, a number of which are ongoing, including a major programme to convert the vehicles from petrol to diesel. This will reduce whole life costs. Additionally, studies are in place to assess the viability of introducing Battle Group Thermal Imagers and the BOWMAN communications system to the vehicle.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many kits to convert the CVR(T) tank from petrol to diesel have been(a) ordered and (b) delivered to date. [117137]

  Dr. Moonie
  A contract was placed with Alvis Vehicles Ltd. for the production and delivery of 1,107 Modification Kits. As at the end of February 2000, 532 Modification Kits had been delivered.

  Zinc Cadmium Sulphide Trials
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former staff of the Porton Down chemical and biological defence establishment were in contact with Professor Peter Lachmann and his panel
  555W
  during the course of their inquiry into the zinc cadmium sulphide trials; and if he will place all the communications between them and Professor Lachmann and his team in the Library. [117058]

  Dr. Moonie
  I understand that Professor Lachmann's team had a number of telephone conversations with one former member of staff at Porton Down. No record of these conversations was made and any advice supplied was used in the final report, a copy of which has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Serbia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reports he has received about the presence of radioactive dust as a result of NATO bombing in Serbia. [117109]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: None. The most recent independent and objective report on the environmental consequences of the Kosovo conflict that I am aware of is the UN Environment Programme report: "The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment". The report concluded, inter alia, that an environmental catastrophe had not taken place in Kosovo. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United States about the use of depleted uranium-tipped shells in Serbia. [117112]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I have had no recent discussions with the United States Government about the use of depleted uranium-based munitions in Serbia.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy of the study by the Institute of Health Protection in Nis, concerning the measurement of the levels of radioactivity in soil samples. [117110]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: We are willing to consider carefully any peer-reviewed studies based on appropriately validated data.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent reports he has received about concentrations of radioactive heavy metal in(a) Pljackovica, (b) Bratoselce, (c) Cerenovac and (d) Rehjan. [117111]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I have received no recent reports about concentrations of radioactive heavy metal in the areas quoted.

  A400M Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Royal Air Force's role in the A400M Project; and if he will make a statement. [117846]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Royal Air Force has been involved at every stage in the Department's work to fulfil our Future Transport Aircraft requirement, for which one of the candidates is the Airbus A400M.

  Low Flying (Saddleworth)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what authorisation there is for low flying in the Saddleworth area; and if any part of the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency is designated as a Royal Air Force training area. [117922]

  Dr. Moonie
  In principle the whole of the UK is available for military low flying training. A number of areas, including controlled airspace and towns with a population of over 10,000, are unavailable. Military low flying training is not permitted over the western half of the hon. Member's constituency as it is located within controlled airspace. The eastern half of the constituency, including the Saddleworth area, is, however, available.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in his Department for each financial year since 1992. [117475]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 391-93W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the contribution funded from his Department to the United Nations force in Kosovo; and what have been the levels of contribution made by other countries. [117158]

  Mr. Hoon
  UNMIK is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsibility. The Ministry of Defence has incurred costs of £1,500 in financial year 1999–2000 which are expected to be repaid by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Information on the costs incurred by other nations is not available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Legal Service (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the availability of the community legal service in Hendon. [117856]

  Mr. Lock
  Hendon, as part of the London Borough of Barnet, is covered by the Barnet Community Legal Service (CLS) Partnership, which will plan how best to fund and co-ordinate legal services to meet priority local needs more effectively. In the constituency of Hendon, there are nine solicitors' firms which have one or more contracts with the Legal Services Commission to supply services under the CLS Fund and hold the CLS Quality Mark. Details of the nine solicitors' firms and other legal service providers in Hendon can be found in the CLS Directory of legal services, which is accessible on the "Just Ask" website at www.justask.org.uk, or by phoning 0845 6081122. The CLS Directory is also available in hard copy in a number of public locations, including all public libraries and county and magistrates courts.

  Road Traffic Accident Protocol
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which organisations took part in the consultation on the development of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society Road Traffic Accident protocol; how much time was allowed for public consultation; and when the protocol will enter into force. [117371]

  Mr. Lock
  Working groups of interested parties are responsible for developing pre-action protocols, with the Lord Chancellor's Department acting as a facilitator. The proposed Road Traffic Accident protocol is still in the development stage and has not yet been subject to full public consultation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total value of UK organic farm produce in each of the past 10 years. [117542]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The estimated retail sales value of UK organic produce in the 1997 Mintel Market Intelligence Report on Organic and Ethical Foods is given in the table:

  Year

  £ million

  £ million (at 1992 prices)

  1992

  93

  93

  1993

  105

  103

  1994

  121

  118

  1995

  140

  131

  1996

  200

  179

  19971

  260

  228

  1 Estimate

  The Soil Association's Organic Food and Farming Report 1999 estimates the retail value of UK sales in 1997–98 and 1998–99 as £260 million and £390 million respectively.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many organic farms there were in the UK in each of the past 10 years; [117540]

  (2) how many farms have been converted to organic farming in each of the past 10 years. [117541]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The numbers of registered organic farmers and growers are given in the table:

  Year

  Number of farmers/growers

  December 1994

  715

  December 1995

  828

  December 1996

  865

  December 1997

  1,026

  December 1998

  1,462

  November 1999

  2,322

  We do not have statistics for the years preceding December 1994.

  BSE
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the underspend in the Treasury's budget for the last financial year for BSE-related expenditures. [113864]

  Ms Quin
  In the 1998–99 financial year, MAFF underspent its provision for BSE-related expenditure by £2 million and the Intervention Board by £17 million. The unspent amounts which were ring-fenced for spending on BSE measures only, were returned to Treasury.

  Primate Exports
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons primates were exported to Gabon and Croatia in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to date. [116709]

  Ms Quin
  Exporters are not required to notify this Department of their reasons for exporting consignments of primates.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates were exported through Dover on the Cap Afrique on 20 and 21 March. [116708]

  Ms Quin
  Inquiries indicate that five primates were exported through Dover on the Cap Afrique on the night of 20-21 March.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates, of which species, were carried on the Cap Afrique in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date; how many were captive bred; and what was their (i) origin and (ii) destination. [116287]

  Ms Quin
  The import licences issued by the Department do not identify the names of vessels or craft used to import consignments of primates. The number of licences actually used to import primates, as distinct from being issued (import licences are valid for six months after issue), in each year since 1997 together with the number of premises of destination involved is as set out:

  Year

  Number of licences used

  Number of premises of destination involved

  1997

  80

  19

  1998

  86

  20

  1999

  67

  18

  2000

  6

  4

  Consolidated information on the origin and total number of primates by species imported into the UK in each year since 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The destination of all such consignments are quarantine premises authorised by the Department, which may be located in zoos, wildlife centres or research premises.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 716W, on primate exports, if he will list the reasons, as listed on their permits, for the import and export of the types of primates listed. [116710]
  559W
  Ms Quin
  Exporters are not required to notify this Department of their reasons for exporting consignments of primates.

  Those applying for licences to import primates into the UK are asked to indicate the purpose for which animals are being imported. The categories are: research, exhibition, as pets, for breeding, or other.

  European Centre for Organic Fruit and Nursery Stock
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the likely location of the European Centre for organic fruit and nursery stock. [117688]

  Ms Quin
  As announced jointly by HM Treasury and the Ministry on 30 March 2000, this new Centre will be at Horticulture Research International, East Malting.

  Regional Service Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the "Action Plan for Farming" published on 30 March contains no commitment to the maintenance of his Department's regional service centres; and if he will make a statement. [117698]

  Mr. Morley
  The action plan for farming makes clear the Government's commitment to minimise administrative and cost burdens, to simplify bureaucracy, and to improve the use of information and communication technologies in fanning communities.

  The recent review of Common Agricultural policy (CAP) scheme administration was commissioned to help us identify the best way to improve the service currently provided to farmers and traders by MAFF's Regional Service Centres (RSCs) and the Intervention Board Executive Agency taking full advantage of the benefits of modern technology.

  No decisions have yet been taken on the future of the RSCs following this review. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 27 March 2000, Official Report, column 37W, which sets out the latest position.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the costs of implementation of agri-environment schemes including Countryside Stewardship. [117686]

  Mr. Morley
  We have already achieved some reduction in the costs of implementing agri-environment schemes as a proportion of payments to farmers. Between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, the costs for scheme monitoring and the provision of technical advice rose from £12.3 million to just over £14 million, while payments to farmers almost doubled.

  In addition, in order to cope with the anticipated doubling of applications for Countryside Stewardship this year, we have introduced a number of steps to help streamline the application process.
  560W
  In the medium terms we plan to carry out a major review of agri-environment schemes to consider reshaping and simplifying them in time to feed in to the mid-term evaluation of the England Rural Development Plan in 2003.

  EU Rural Development Regulations
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to use the provision under article 13(b) of EU Rural Development Regulations to introduce schemes of management for areas where environmental restrictions apply. [117593]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 457-58W.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in his Department for each financial year since 1992. [117478]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department borrows works of art from the Government Art Collection, which is funded and maintained by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 392-93W. The Department has not bought any works of art since 1992.

  Special Area Project
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the provisions of the Special Area Project for the Forest of Bowland to other areas within England that contain sites of international importance for wildlife. [117611]

  Mr. Morley
  We intend to carry out an economic evaluation of the project at the end of its two-year pilot phase in March 2001. We will wish to consider the results of that evaluation before deciding whether to extend the project's provisions to other areas within England.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the flood defence programme for Edgware and Burnt Oak. [117216]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency are aiming to consult on an Environment Statement for the Silk Stream flood alleviation scheme in the next few weeks, with a view to making a planning application for the works in August.

  Gelatine
  Mr. Yeo

  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which countries exported gelatine to the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and what quantity of gelatine each of those countries exported; [117007]
  561W
  (2) from which countries gelatine (a) used and (b) sold in food outlets operated by his Ministry (i) as part of a food product and (ii) as a separate ingredient is imported. [117024]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: UK imports of gelatine in 1995–99 (tonnes) were as follows:

  Country

  19951

  19961

  19971

  1998

  19992

  France

  —

  —

  —

  2,605

  3,886

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  2,216

  1,737

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  1,617

  1,570

  Brazil

  —

  —

  —

  1,454

  1,602

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  1,227

  1,538

  USA

  —

  —

  —

  1,207

  1,529

  China

  —

  —

  —

  1,001

  681

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  —

  875

  705

  Italy

  —

  —

  —

  679

  424

  India

  —

  —

  —

  491

  604

  South Korea

  —

  —

  —

  361

  396

  Colombia

  —

  —

  —

  344

  307

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  514

  113

  Irish

  Republic

  —

  —

  —

  218

  68

  Switzerland

  —

  —

  —

  102

  169

  Taiwan

  —

  —

  —

  91

  86

  Argentina

  —

  —

  —

  66

  103

  Others

  —

  —

  —

  176

  253

  Grand total

  14,753

  16,405

  14,997

  15,242

  15,773

  1 Import data is not available at country level prior to 1998

  2 Provisional

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  As for foodstuffs, gelatine is used as an ingredient in a very wide range of foodstuffs and it would not be possible to identify separately from which countries such foodstuffs are imported.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he last met representatives of the Gelatine Manufacturers of Europe to discuss the safety of gelatine(a) as part of a food product and (b) a separate ingredient imported into the United Kingdom; [117005]

  (2) when he last met representatives of the Gelatine Manufacturers of Europe; and what was discussed. [117004]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: I have held no discussions with the Gelatine Manufacturers of Europe. My officials are however in regular contact with UK gelatine manufacturers.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recent discussions(a) he and (b) his Department has had with (i) the European Commission, (ii) the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (iii) the French Government, (iv) the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and (v) the World Health Organisation concerning the safety of gelatine (1) as part of a food product and (2) as a separate ingredient imported in to the United Kingdom. [117006]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: My Department has held discussions with officials of the European Commission and the French Government on various aspects of the safety of gelatine. Discussions with the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the
  562W
  Secretary of State for Health. The role of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) is to give independent, scientific advice to Ministers on all aspects of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. SEAC last advised on the safety of gelatine in 1997.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much gelatine was produced in the United Kingdom in the last five years. [117008]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The only readily available information is that published by the Gelatine Manufacturers of Europe (GME). The GME estimates that in 1998 the United Kingdom produced 10,000 tonnes of gelatine for all purposes for edible, pharmaceutical, photographic and technical uses. The sources are listed by the GME as pigskin, hide, bone and other raw materials. A breakdown by country of figures for earlier years is not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Directives
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many European Union Directives have been incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom. [117582]

  Mr. Vaz
  A comprehensive list of all European legislation in force as at 1 December 1999 is contained in the Official Journal Directory of Community legislation in force (34th Ed.). This is updated every six months and is available in the Library of the House. More in depth information on all legislation referred to is available from the Celex database which has been open to the public since 1981.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the present position is as regards delays faced by motor vehicles at the Gibraltar/Spain border; and if he will make a statement. [117410]

  Mr. Vaz
  Most traffic crosses from Gibraltar to Spain during the main daytime and evening hours. In recent weeks, delays at these times have generally ranged from 20 minutes to one hour. At times, during the rush hour, delays have gone above one hour, and, on occasion, there have been peaks of up to two hours.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Norwegian Government about Sri Lanka. [117641]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) discussed the Norwegian initiative in Sri Lanka with State Secretary Wegger Stromen on 7 March. The government of which Mr. Stromen was a member has now fallen. The Secretary of State plans to make early contact with the new Norwegian Foreign Minister, Thorbjorn Jagland, when he will have an opportunity to discuss Norway's role in Sri Lanka.

  Helsinki Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 536W, on the Helsinki Council, the terms of reference, guidance and accountability of the standing committees have been determined. [117486]

  Mr. Vaz
  No decisions have been taken on the establishment of these bodies in their permanent form. The Council decided on 15 February to establish equivalent bodies on an interim basis. Under these decisions, the Interim Political and Security Committee, a separate formation of the Political Committee, shall, in close contacts with the Secretary General/High Representative prepare recommendations for the Council on the future functioning of the common European security and defence policy and deal with common foreign and security policy affairs on a day-to-day basis. An Interim Military Body, consisting of representatives of member states' Chiefs of Defence, shall give military advice as required to the Political Committee, including in its formation as the interim Political and Security Committee, and to the Secretary General/High Representative. It is assisted by military experts seconded from member states to the Council Secretariat. The military experts will provide military expertise to the Interim Military Body and the Secretary General/High Representative to support the common foreign and security policy. They will form the nucleus of the future military staff.

  US Missile Defence System
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the implications for non-proliferation of United States' plans to establish a National Missile Defence Shield Programme, involving forward bases in the United Kingdom [117675]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United States has not yet decided to deploy any such system. Its implications for non-proliferation would depend on the circumstances in which it were deployed.

  The United States Administration has said that the implications for the overall strategic environment and for arms control will be one of the key criteria against which any deployment decision is taken.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the contribution funded from his Department for the reconstruction of Kosovo since June 1999; and what have been the levels of the contribution of(a) other EU member states, (b) Canada and (c) the USA. [117159]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK is donating £119 million in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in 1999 and 2000. A further £15 million is also available for assistance to international relief organisations and to de-mining projects. Over the same period the other EU member states (excluding the UK) are donating 1.1 billion euros in bilateral humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. The Community itself allocated 507.7 million euros in 1999 and is donating 295 million euros in humanitarian and
  564W
  reconstruction assistance for 2000. The Canadian Government have committed C$34.5 million in humanitarian and budgetary assistance and C$69.5 million in peace-building initiatives from April 1999 to March 2001. The US has allocated £168 million in reconstruction aid and $95.6 million in humanitarian aid over 1999–2000.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many police officers have been provided by the United Kingdom to serve in Kosovo; and how many have been provided by other countries. [117160]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom has deployed 60 police officers to the United Nations International Police (UNIP) in Kosovo. At the request of the UN, we are increasing that contribution to 150 officers, including 20 specialists to help combat organised crime in Kosovo. In addition, the UK has contributed 40 officers to the OSCE-run school training the future Kosovo police service.

  According to figures provided by the UN on 29 March, 2,760 civilian police officers have been deployed to UNIP by 43 other countries.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the use of arms in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo supplied to the Governments of(a) Uganda and (b) Zimbabwe from UK sources; and if he will make a statement. [117958]

  Mr. Hain
  We have received no reports of British equipment previously supplied to the Ugandan Government being used by their forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). We understand that two Hawk jets supplied from the UK to the Zimbabwe airforce are deployed in the DRC from time to time, though we have no details.

  Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the forthcoming trial of the 13 detained Jews in Iran, with particular reference to the fairness of the trial procedure and whether independent observers will be permitted to attend. [117857]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer to my answers to my hon. Friend's questions of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 282W. It would not be right to speculate on the conduct of this trial before it has begun. The Iranian Government have stressed repeatedly that the trial of those detained on espionage charges, including members of the Jewish community, will be fair and open. These are commitments to which the international community will hold the Iranian government.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which companies have placed advertisements on websites funded by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies; how much revenue has been generated for each
  565W
  financial year since 1997 from such advertisements; and what use has been made of that revenue by his Department. [116597]

  Mr. Hain
  No companies have placed advertisements on websites funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  Two companies have sponsored the Planet Britain website (www.planet-britain.org). Eagle Star contributed £35,000 to the costs of the 1998 website and accompanying CD-ROM while Glaxo Wellcome contributed £6,000 to both the 1998 and 2000 versions of the Planet Britain website. The logos of the two companies appear on the website.

CABINET OFFICE

  Workplace Parking
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many workplace car parking spaces are available at the buildings used and controlled by her Department. [116764]

  Mr. Stringer
  As at 31 March, the Cabinet Office's estate (which comprised 28 buildings; 17 in central London and 11 elsewhere) had a total of 762 car parking spaces. The parking spaces are used for a range of purposes: deliveries, operational, visitors and staff use. For example, the figure includes 226 spaces available to students attending courses at the Civil Service College. Further details are given in the table, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  We are preparing a travel plan for the Cabinet Office in line with the commitment set out in the Transport White Paper, and we are reviewing their scope for reducing our car parking requirements in that context.

  Taskforces
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list, for each of the taskforces which have reported, the number of recommendations which(a) they made and (b) have been implemented by the relevant departments. [117966]

  Mr. Stringer
  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A full list of taskforces established since May 1997 was placed in the Library as stated on 9 December 1999,Official Report, column

  College

  Enrolments on full-time courses at NI FE colleges1

  Loan up-take2

  Percentage up-take

  1997–98

  BIHFE

  1,342

  766

  57

  North West Institute

  687

  209

  30

  Fermanagh College

  108

  37

  3

  NIHCC

  216

  76

  35

  North East Institute

  172

  52

  30

  East Antrim Institute

  41

  18

  44

  Lisburn College

  71

  17

  24

  North Down and Ards Institute

  369

  117

  32

  East Down Institute

  2

  0

  0

  566W
  634W. The list provides a breakdown of membership between the private, public and voluntary sectors as well as details of reports prepared by individual taskforces. Those taskforces which are classified as Non-Departmental Public Bodies are excluded from the list as information on them is published in the annual Public Bodies publication.

  Employers Forum on Disability
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which Government Departments(a) have and (b) have not joined the Employers Forum on Disability.
  [117628]

  Mr. Stringer
  My Department does not keep central records regarding membership of the Employers Forum on Disability or other employer organisations. The decision whether to join the Forum is a matter for individual Departments and agencies.

  However, the Employers Forum on Disability tell us that as at 1 April 2000, 14 Government Departments and agencies had joined the Forum. They are:

  Cabinet Office

  Court Service

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA)

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department for Trade and Industry

  Patent Office

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Inland Revenue

  Insolvency Service

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Ministry of Defence

  Office for National Statistics

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Students
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the take-up rates were for student loans for each further and higher education college in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [114656]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the relevant information from 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000.
  567W

  College

  Enrolments on full-time courses at NI FE colleges1

  Loan up-take2

  Percentage up-take

  Newry and Kilkeel college

  143

  25

  18

  Upper Bann Institute

  132

  35

  27

  Total

  3,283

  1,352

  1998–99

  BIHFE

  1,301

  809

  62

  North West Institute

  684

  271

  40

  Fermanagh College

  112

  49

  44

  NIHCC

  204

  86

  42

  North East Institute

  178

  58

  33

  East Antrim Institute

  38

  17

  45

  Lisburn College

  68

  26

  38

  North Down and Ards Institute

  375

  161

  43

  East Down Institute

  1

  0

  0

  Newry and Kilkeel College

  134

  46

  34

  Upper Bann Institute

  133

  54

  41

  Total

  3,228

  1,577

  1999–2000

  BIHFE

  1,391

  1,156

  83

  North West Institute

  716

  477

  67

  Fermanagh College

  128

  93

  73

  NIHCC

  204

  122

  60

  North East Institute

  184

  89

  48

  East Antrim Institute

  40

  29

  73

  Lisburn College

  82

  41

  50

  North Down and Ards Institute

  407

  279

  69

  East Down Institute

  12

  6

  50

  Newry and Kilkeel College

  182

  107

  59

  Upper Bann Institute

  157

  101

  64

  Total3

  3,503

  2,500

  1 Figures based on snapshots of enrolments at 1 November each academic year include EU students who are not eligible for loans

  2 Figures provided by the Student Loans Company

  3 Figures for 1999–2000 are provisional

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries have been attributable to paramilitary groups since the start of the ceasefire in July 1997; and what was the number in the three years before the ceasefire. [116070]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of deaths attributable to paramilitary groups and casualties from paramilitary style attacks since 1 January 1995 to 29 February 2000.

  Security situation statistics

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Deaths

  1995

  2

  7

  1996

  5

  9

  19971

  9

  4

  19972

  7

  1

  1998

  17

  37

  1999

  3

  4

  20003

  4

  —

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  1995

  3

  —

  1996

  21

  3

  19971

  33

  16

  19972

  13

  10

  1998

  34

  38

  1999

  47

  26

  20003

  7

  —

  568W

  Security situation statistics

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  1995

  76

  141

  1996

  130

  172

  19971

  45

  53

  19972

  33

  25

  1998

  89

  55

  1999

  91

  42

  20003

  13

  5

  1 To 19 July

  2 With effect from 20 July

  3 To 29 February

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of supplying and fitting the new railings around the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, including the cost of the demolition and removal of the existing wall. [1167121]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The cost of supplying and fitting the new railings is £415,275. A further £79,337 will be spent restoring the existing listed boundary wall. The project is jointly funded by the Millennium Commission and the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust.

  IDB Industrial Site, Lisburn
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits by potential investors there have been to the new IDB industrial site at Knockmore in Lisburn. [117096]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period April 1996 to March 1999, IDB arranged 11 visits by potential inward investors to Knockmore Hill Industrial Estate.

  Violence Victims
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what measures he is taking to ensure that funds from the European Union assigned to organisations which claim to support victims of violence are used for that purpose; [117126]

  (2) what is the total value of EU funds provided to Northern Ireland since December 1993; and how much of this has gone to organisations claiming to support victims of violence. [117125]

  Mr. Ingram
  All organisations, including those offering support to victims of violence, which received funding from the European Union are subject to the financial controls stipulated in the European Commission's regulations and enforced by each member state. These include verification visits by the promoters through which the funds are channelled; independent audit checks by consultants acting on behalf of the promoters; and checks/visits carried out by Departmental Internal Auditors, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the European Court of Auditors.

  The total value of European Union funds allocated to Northern Ireland since December 1993 is approximately £1.5 billion comprising NI Single Programme £980 million, Community Initiatives £92 million and the European Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation £385 million.

  A total of £3.8 million has been allocated to organisations specifically offering support for victims of violence.

  Targeting Social Need
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has taken to integrate the statutory equality duty into the new Targeting Social Need initiative. [117362]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The statutory obligation on equality of opportunity under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and New Targeting Social Need (New TSN) are separate but complementary elements of the Government's equality agenda. The statutory obligation requires Public Authorities, including NI Departments and the NIO, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in terms of nine social categories. New TSN is a policy running through spending programmes in NI Government Departments and the NIO which requires efforts and available resources to be targeted towards people, groups and areas objectively defined as being in greatest social need.
  570W
  The Government have made it clear that there is no incompatibility between the principles of equality of opportunity and targeting on the basis of objective social need; addressing disadvantage may often contribute to reducing socio-economic inequalities within the Section 75 categories. The OFMDFM will include the New TSN policy within its Equality Impact Assessment in due course.

  Employment Equality
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will accept the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Commission on Fair Employment to conduct the next analysis of unemployment differentials before the 2011 Census. [117359]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Government continually monitor community differentials in unemployment through annual Labour Force Surveys. The analysis will be greatly assisted by the results of the 2001 Census, which will provide more accurate data. In the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" (Cm 3890 March 1998) the Government gave a commitment to a further review of employment equality in Northern Ireland, including unemployment differentials, to be launched by 2005. They also predicted that the proposals in the White Paper, together with social and economic change, would lead to a substantial reduction in unemployment differentials which should be evidenced in the 2011 Census.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to circulate final guidelines on fair employment practices. [117360]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 the Equality Commission, with the approval of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, may issue Codes of Practice on fair employment issues. A Code of Practice has been in circulation for several years. My hon. Friend may be referring to the Equality Commission's equality scheme guidelines, "Guide to the Statutory duties: A guide to the implementation of the statutory duties on public authorities arising from Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998". Those guidelines were launched by the Equality Commission on 31 March 2000. Distribution of the guidelines is a matter for the Commission.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being made to ensure that the additional funding for schools announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go directly into school budgets in Northern Ireland. [117858]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I can confirm that £14.7 million will be distributed for the benefit of every primary, post-primary and special school in Northern Ireland, and that decisions on the use of this additional funding will be for schools to make. The funds will be paid through the normal funding mechanisms.

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the expenditure incurred by his Department, Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies on(a) the setting up and (b) the operation of websites, indicating the cases in which the expenditure has been above that budgeted; and if he will list for each website (i) the topics that have been covered, (ii) the current average number of hits per month and (iii) the estimated expenditure on each website for each of the next three years. [116201]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: The Northern Ireland Public Service Web Site was developed with the intention of providing the public with a mechanism for quickly accessing information relating to Northern Ireland Office, Departments, Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies and Commissions.

  (a) Expenditure incurred setting up the Northern Ireland Public Service Web Site.
  The initial set up costs for the NICS Web Server amounted to £8,500 capital expenditure in 1997. Staff costs associated with the set up are not available.

  (b) Expenditure incurred in the operation of the Northern Ireland Public Service Web Site.
  The expenditure incurred in 1999–2000 will be £287,080 broken down as follows:

  Maintenance £8,500.

  Connection to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) £36,080.

  Ongoing development £195,000.

  Replacement Web Servers £47,500

  (i) The topics covered by the Northern Ireland Public Service Web Site are listed in Appendix A.

  (ii) The current average number of hits per month for all Northern Ireland Public Service Sites is 2.58 million.

  (iii) The estimated central expenditure on the Northern Ireland Public Service Web Site for the next three years is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Development of Web applications and standards

  Infrastructure support

  Total

  2000–01

  216,473

  61,460

  277,933

  2001–02

  299,336

  73,228

  372,564

  2002–03

  299,336

  73,228

  372,564

  Note:

  Individual Departmental/NDPB expenditure is not available

  Topics on the Northern Ireland Civil Service Web Site

  (Department of) Agriculture and Rural Development

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  (Local Government) Audit Office

  Business Development Service (BDS)

  Belfast City Vision

  Central Adjudication Services (CAS)

  Central Community Relations Unit

  Chief Executives' Forum

  Child Support Agency (CSA)

  Citizen's Charter for Northern Ireland

  Clinical Resource Efficiency Team (CREST)

  Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland

  Compensation Agency

  Construction Service

  572W

  (Department of) Culture, Arts and Leisure

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland (DVLNI)

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (DVTA)

  (Northern Ireland) Economic Bull Points

  (Department of) Education

  (Department of) Enterprise Trade and Investment

  (Department of) the Environment

  Environment and Heritage Service

  Equality Commission

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Economics Division—Department of Finance and Personnel

  Energy Managers Group

  Euro

  European Division—Department of Finance and Personnel

  European Programmes

  European Union—Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  (Department of) Finance and Personnel

  Forensic Science Unit of Northern Ireland

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  Government DIRECT—for Business Northern Ireland

  Government Purchasing Agency

  Greenmount College of Agriculture and Horticulture

  Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

  (Department of) Health, Social Services and Public Safety

  Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS)

  (Department of) Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment

  Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (IDB)

  Industrial and Research Technology Unit (IRTU)

  Innovation Relay Centre for Northern Ireland

  Land Registers of Northern Ireland

  Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU)

  Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland

  National Year of Reading

  Northern Ireland Assembly

  Northern Ireland Audit Office

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA)

  Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE)

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Northern Ireland Drugs Information

  Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities

  Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Northern Ireland Millennium Company

  Northern Ireland Museum Council

  Northern Ireland Office (NIO)

  NICO—Northern Ireland Public Sector Enterprises

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA)

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Northern Ireland Urban Initiative

  North/South Co-operation

  North/South Ministerial Council

  Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG)

  573W

  Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

  (Northern Ireland) Ombudsman

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland (OSNI)

  Parades Commission

  Patten Commission (Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland)

  Peace Maze

  Planning Service

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI)

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI)

  Public Appointments

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Public Appointments Report

  Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI)

  Public Sector Enterprises (NICO)

  Rates Collection Agency (RCA)

  Registry of Companies Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies

  (Department for ) Regional Development

  Roads Service

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)

  Rural Transport Fund for Northern Ireland

  (DED) Statistics and Research Branch

  Shaping our Future

  (Department for) Social Development

  Social Security Agency (SSA)

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Strategy 2010

  Trading Standards

  Training and Employment Agency (TEA)

  Training Services

  Ulster Museum

  Urban Traffic Control Centre

  Valuation and Lands Agency (VLA)

  Water Service.

WALES

  Press Officers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press officers were employed by his Office in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994, (d) 1995, (e) 1996, (f) 1997, (g) 1998 and (h) 1999. [116324]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regret that figures are not available for the years before 1994 for the Welsh Office Press Office. From 1994 until the start of the National Assembly in July 1999 the Press Office had between eight and nine press officers.

PRIME MINISTER

  Universal Primary Education
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss the achievement of universal primary education at this year's G8 Summit. [116543]
  574W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 2000]: The World Education Forum in Dakar later this month will assess progress achieved in the decade since the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien. This is an important opportunity for the international community to reaffirm its commitment to providing education for the world's children, and to put in place a Framework for Action. At the G8 Summit in Okinawa in July Heads of Government will consider the outcome of the Dakar Forum and look at what more can be done to ensure that the target of universal primary education by 2015 is achieved.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has held with his EU and UN counterparts concerning the achievement of universal primary education. [116544]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 2000]: The Government are committed to the target of achieving universal primary education by 2015. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and Department for International Development officials are in frequent contact with their EU and UN counterparts about the achievement of universal primary education. The UN Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF)—together with the World bank—are the convenors of the World Education Forum to be held in Dakar later this month.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date Lord Levy signed the Official Secrets Act. [117774]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy has not been asked to sign a copy of the Official Secrets Act, but he is, of course, bound by the Act's provisions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 852W, what further visits since 22 February 2000, have been undertaken by Lord Levy on his behalf. [117784]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy visited Tunisia and Morocco in the week beginning 5 March.

  Foreign Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those persons who have undertaken foreign visits on his behalf since May 1997, giving in each case details of the countries visited and the purpose of each visit. [117773]

  The Prime Minister
  As has been the practice for previous Administrations, if it is helpful to the UK Government individuals may be asked to carry messages or undertake particular tasks on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. We do not maintain a record of such occasions.

HEALTH

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has asked for from NHS hospitals in England and Wales on the recent pressures they have faced; and what were the main issues of concern reported by those hospitals. [113849]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Executive in England has held a series of seminars for local winter planning groups (which include NHS trusts) in each region to consider the main issues emerging from the winter period.

  The main concerns reported by NHS trusts were peaks in emergency admissions from patients suffering from influenza and respiratory illness, staff shortages and the cancellation of operations because of pressure on critical care beds.

  Junior Doctors (Hours)
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's submission to the negotiations on the Working Time Directive on reducing working hours for junior doctors. [116883]

  Mr. Denham
  We are firmly committed to reducing junior doctors' working hours. We have already agreed a new contract with junior doctors' negotiators which will, if accepted in their referendum, place an 56 hour limit on average weekly hours by February 2004.

  An agreement was reached between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on 3 April as part of the Conciliation to extend the European Working Time Directive to the excluded sectors. If approved by the European Parliament, this will provide a sound footing for reducing junior doctors' working hours. Over the next decade, we will have to make sure we can meet the needs of patients and deliver improvements in patient care while at the same time reducing doctors' hours. That is why we and our European partners have argued for a realistic transitional period in order to implement fully the terms of the Directive as they apply to doctors in training. We are pleased that the Conciliation has achieved recognition of the need for flexibility during the transitional period.

  Health Authority Finances
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the real-terms growth in funding for each NHS health authority area from 1999–2000 to 2000–01. [117266]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Table 1 shows real terms increases for health authorities for 1999–2000.

  Table 2 shows real terms increases for health authorities for 2000–01. This includes the £660 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 March. This brings overall increases for health authorities to 6.2 per cent. in real terms (8.9 per cent. cash).
  576W

  Table 1

  Health authority

  1999–2000 real terms increase (£000)

  1999–2000 real terms increase (%)

  Avon

  22,308

  4.09

  Barking and Havering

  9,635

  4.00

  Barnet

  7,800

  3.98

  Barnsley

  7,581

  5.22

  Bedfordshire

  14,110

  4.85

  Berkshire

  19,125

  4.77

  Bexley and Greenwich

  7,892

  2.88

  Birmingham

  24,980

  3.90

  Bradford

  13,867

  4.76

  Brent and Harrow

  9,444

  3.21

  Bromley

  6,713

  3.89

  Buckinghamshire

  15,589

  4.54

  Bury and Rochdale

  10,418

  4.48

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  13,724

  3.96

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  8,976

  4.10

  Camden and Islington

  13,279

  4.43

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  9,648

  3.22

  County Durham

  17,187

  4.48

  Coventry

  8,726

  4.66

  Croydon

  7,817

  4.12

  Doncaster

  8,214

  4.43

  Dorset

  12,334

  2.91

  Dudley

  6,964

  4.06

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  18,134

  4.06

  East and North Hertfordshire

  10,859

  3.99

  East Kent

  14,036

  3.77

  East Lancashire

  13,037

  3.97

  East London and the City

  24,911

  5.48

  East Norfolk

  13,619

  3.81

  East Riding

  14,527

  4.31

  East Surrey

  6,749

  2.92

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  17,858

  3.76

  Enfield and Haringey

  12,487

  4.12

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  10,379

  4.34

  Gloucestershire

  9,190

  2.90

  Herefordshire

  3,576

  3.86

  Hillingdon

  5,599

  3.86

  Isle of Wight

  2,945

  3.38

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  15,960

  6.06

  Kingston and Richmond

  5,797

  2.93

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  24,054

  4.50

  Leeds

  18,447

  4.20

  Leicestershire

  21,907

  4.53

  Lincolnshire

  14,182

  3.82

  Liverpool

  13,968

  4.26

  Manchester

  11,285

  3.42

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  14,953

  3.76

  Morecambe Bay

  5,633

  2.89

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  13,468

  4.31

  North and East Devon

  8,330

  2.92

  North and Mid Hampshire

  10,417

  3.80

  North Cheshire

  5.581

  2.92

  North Cumbria

  7,781

  4.18

  North Derbyshire

  8,317

  3.88

  North Essex

  18,780

  3.97

  North Nottinghamshire

  9,099

  4.11

  North Staffordshire

  13,337

  4.70

  North West Anglia

  9,963

  4.25

  North West Lancashire

  11,816

  3.91

  North Yorkshire

  15,976

  3.91

  Northamptonshire

  11,664

  3.80

  Northumberland

  7,736

  4.20

  Nottingham

  17,427

  4.78

  Oxfordshire

  14,558

  4.77

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  12,537

  4.05

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8,136

  2.89

  Rotherham

  6,934

  4.66

  577W

  Table 1

  Health authority

  1999–2000 real terms increase (£000)

  1999–2000 real terms increase (%)

  Salford and Trafford

  11,967

  4.12

  Sandwell

  9,072

  4.73

  Sefton

  7,453

  4.13

  Sheffield

  14,677

  4.27

  Shropshire

  9,105

  3.92

  Solihull

  4,844

  4.22

  Somerset

  10,379

  3.81

  South and West Devon

  11,076

  3.05

  South Cheshire

  14,566

  3.82

  South Derbyshire

  13,675

  4.29

  South Essex

  18,006

  4.62

  South Humber

  5,475

  2.90

  South Lancashire

  5,133

  2.91

  South Staffordshire

  11,560

  3.81

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  12,248

  3.98

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  9,482

  4.27

  Stockport

  6,749

  4.08

  Suffolk

  11,002

  2.92

  Sunderland

  8,211

  4.37

  Tees

  15,264

  4.41

  Wakefield

  8,339

  4.20

  Walsall

  7,244

  4.75

  Warwickshire

  8.114

  2.92

  West Hertfordshire

  11,301

  3.79

  West Kent

  20,181

  3.81

  West Pennine

  11,673

  4.19

  West Surrey

  10,231

  2.91

  West Sussex

  17,473

  3.99

  Wigan and Bolton

  15,891

  4.56

  Wiltshire

  12,280

  3.78

  Wirral

  8,705

  4.09

  Wolverhampton

  6,806

  4.54

  Worcestershire

  10,773

  3.78

  England

  1,171,238

  4.00

  Table 2

  Health authority

  2000–01 real terms increase (£000)

  2000–01 real terms increase (%)

  Avon

  37,526

  6.37

  Barking and Havering

  15,094

  5.81

  Barnet

  12,650

  6.02

  Barnsley

  11,129

  7.12

  Bedfordshire

  22,425

  7.14

  Berkshire

  30,366

  6.86

  Bexley and Greenwich

  16,309

  5.55

  Birmingham

  40,853

  5.92

  Bradford

  20,964

  6.65

  Brent and Harrow

  18,237

  5.78

  Bromley

  11,200

  6.05

  Buckinghamshire

  25,118

  6.74

  Bury and Rochdale

  16,962

  6.70

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  22,577

  6.09

  Cambridgeshire

  26,842

  6.63

  Camden and Islington

  20,304

  6.19

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  18,979

  5.96

  County Durham

  27,041

  6.52

  Coventry

  13,604

  6.71

  Croydon

  12,935

  6.32

  Doncaster

  12,762

  6.42

  Dorset

  25,462

  5.66

  Dudley

  11,779

  6.41

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  29,650

  6.15

  578W

  Table 2

  Health authority

  2000–01 real terms increase (£000)

  2000–01 real terms increase (%)

  East and North Hertfordshire

  18,637

  6.38

  East Kent

  22,381

  5.61

  East Lancashire

  23,082

  6.56

  East London and the City

  37,438

  7.54

  East Riding

  23,184

  6.40

  East Surrey

  13,901

  5.62

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  28,768

  5.65

  Enfield and Haringey

  19,597

  5.96

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  16,899

  6.64

  Gloucestershire

  19,158

  5.70

  Herefordshire

  6,103

  6.12

  Hillingdon

  9,626

  6.18

  Isle of Wight

  5,140

  5.53

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  23,536

  8.12

  Kingston and Richmond

  12,304

  5.61

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  36,630

  6.25

  Leeds

  29,568

  6.23

  Leicestershire

  36,005

  6.91

  Lincolnshire

  24,815

  6.29

  Liverpool

  20,883

  5.98

  Manchester

  20,974

  6.00

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  24,058

  5.72

  Morecambe Bay

  11,882

  5.75

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  21,156

  6.31

  Norfolk

  28,300

  6.10

  North and East Devon

  17,416

  5.74

  North and Mid Hampshire

  17,684

  6.00

  North Cheshire

  11,645

  5.80

  North Cumbria

  12,692

  6.35

  North Derbyshire

  14,250

  6.22

  North Essex

  31,322

  6.13

  North Nottinghamshire

  15,751

  6.61

  North Staffordshire

  20,568

  6.71

  North West Lancashire

  20,150

  6.23

  North Yorkshire

  26,912

  6.17

  Northamptonshire

  19,308

  5.87

  Northumberland

  12,738

  6.46

  Nottingham

  27,179

  6.95

  Oxfordshire

  21,935

  6.58

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  20,571

  6.14

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  16,721

  5.59

  Rotherham

  10,731

  6.74

  Salford and Trafford

  18,683

  5.97

  Sandwell

  13,536

  6.59

  Sefton

  11,531

  5.91

  Sheffield

  22,270

  6.06

  Shropshire

  15,815

  6.36

  Solihull

  7,352

  5.97

  Somerset

  17,857

  6.09

  South and West Devon

  22,566

  5.83

  South Cheshire

  23,848

  5.83

  South Derbyshire

  22,122

  6.42

  South Essex

  27,706

  6.53

  South Humber

  11,290

  5.65

  South Lancashire

  11,187

  5.89

  South Staffordshire

  19,713

  6.08

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  20,252

  6.13

  Stockport

  10,617

  5.96

  Suffolk

  23,417

  5.85

  Sunderland

  13,359

  6.66

  Tees

  25,175

  6.80

  Wakefield

  13,584

  6.37

  Walsall

  11,081

  6.75

  Warwickshire

  16,668

  5.63

  West Hertfordshire

  19,024

  5.96

  West Kent

  33,292

  5.84

  579W

  Table

  Health authority

  2000–01 real terms increase (£000)

  2000–01 real terms increase (%)

  West Pennine

  19,355

  6.48

  West Surrey

  20,941

  5.65

  West Sussex

  29,293

  6.21

  Wigan and Bolton

  25,414

  6.78

  Wiltshire

  20,033

  5.71

  Wirral1

  13,524

  5.91

  Wolverhampton

  10,972

  6.83

  Worcestershire

  17,930

  5.90

  England

  1,957,357

  6.23

  Bought-in Services
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid to the private healthcare industry for procedures carried out on behalf of NHS patients, broken down by health authority for each of the last three years. [117701]

  Ms Stuart
  The amount of National Health Service funds spent on the provision of services for NHS patients treated outside the NHS (in the independent healthcare sector comprising of for profit hospitals, not for profit hospitals, voluntary hospitals/hospices and independent clinics), for the last three years are as follows:

  1998–99: £1.25 billion (4.8 per cent. of total NHS expenditure)

  1997–98: £1.08 billion (4.6 per cent. of total NHS expenditure)

  1996–97: £0.87 billion (3.8 per cent. of total NHS expenditure)

  A breakdown showing the expenditure by individual health authority, including the proportion spent on services outside the NHS has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the extent of the use of private sector health facilities by the NHS in the last year. [117404]

  Ms Stuart
  During 1998–99, £1.25 billion (4.8 per cent. of total National Health Service spending on the provision of health services) was spent on services commissioned outside the NHS (from the private healthcare industry and charitable and voluntary organisations). Over half was spent on residential care, mainly for learning disability and mental illness patients.

  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects products that have been approved by the EU Standing Committee for Animal Feedingstuffs in December to be published in the Official Journal; and when he expects products so approved to appear on the consolidated list of approved products circulated to member states. [117962]

  Ms Stuart
  Provisions for new feed additives agreed at the 6-7 December meeting of the Standing Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 March as Commission Regulation (EC) 654/2000. This Regulation has now come into force in all European Union member states.
  580W
  On 28 February the European Commission produced a comprehensive list of additives authorised for use in animal feed. The list has no legal basis in itself and is expected to be next revised in early 2001.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what products from British companies were considered by the December meeting of the EU Standing Committee for Animal Feedingstuffs under the Microbe and Enzyme Directive 93/113. [117961]

  Ms Stuart
  New authorisations for feed additives, such as those agreed at the December meeting of the European Union Standing Committee for Animal Feedingstuffs, are granted under Council Directive 70/524/EEC for generic, rather than product-specific approval. I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that one new authorisation agreed in December was on a dossier provided by a British company. The corresponding provision contained in Commission Regulation 654/2000 is for the use of a micro-organism product for use in feed for calves containing certain strains of Lactobacillus casei and Enterococcus faecium.

  Mobile Phones
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the findings of the Consumers Association regarding radiation risks of hands-free mobile phones and shields; and if he will make a statement. [118010]

  Yvette Cooper
  The findings of the Consumers Association will be assessed by the independent expert group on mobile phones. The group, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS FRSE, is considering the possible health effects from the use of mobile telephones, base stations and transmitters and is conducting a comprehensive assessment of existing research.

  The group is currently completing its review of the evidence and is preparing its report prior to publication in May.

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2000,Official Report, columns 61-62W, on fruit and vegetables, if he will list the methods used by his Department, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to inform the public of the advice on peeling and washing fruit and vegetables in relation to pesticide residues; what was the expenditure on such advice in the last financial year; and if the Food Standards Agency will continue to give such advice. [118016]

  Ms Stuart
  Advice to wash and prepare fruit and vegetables before eating has been included in press releases and the Ministry of Agriculture/Department of Health Food Safety Information Bulletin when results from surveys of pesticide residues in food are published. It is also used by Government Departments in responding to inquiries about pesticide residues in food. Reporting the results of surveys is routine work and no separate information on related expenditure is available. The Food
  581W
  Standards Agency is committed to informing and advising consumers about food safety issues relating to pesticides. It will continue to promote advice to wash fruit and vegetables.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will implement the Royal Commission report recommendations on Long Term Care for the Elderly. [118229]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 20 March 2000,Official Report, columns 430-31W.

  Workplace Parking
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 217W, on workplace parking, how many workplace car parking spaces are available at hospitals, clinics and other establishments controlled by (a) him and (b) health authorities and trusts. [117955]

  Ms Stuart
  It is not known how many workplace parking spaces are available at National Health Service healthcare premises.

  As healthcare providers, the NHS is well aware of the need to reduce transport congestion and hence pollution, and are taking steps to address their transport requirements. Transport strategies will include reducing car parking spaces by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transport whenever possible or practicable.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice she has given to aid workers deployed in Kosovo with the support of her Department in respect of hazards posed by the residual radioactivity remaining from the use of depleted uranium shells by allied forces in Kosovo. [117070]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister for the Armed Forces on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 225W, where he stated that the health risks from depleted uranium (DU) are assessed as generally low. However, civilian mine clearance organisations have regular contact with many types of unexploded ordnance. KFOR provided the United Nations Mines Action and Co-Ordination Centre (UNMACC) with an information pack about DU which UNMACC distributed to each mine clearance organisation.

  The Government have not felt it necessary to provide further advice to general aid workers on this issue. My Department's view is that mines and unexploded ordnance pose a greater risk to assistance workers; all personnel are given mines awareness training before deployment to Kosovo.
  582W
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the contribution funded from her Department for the reconstruction of Kosovo is planned to change; and what implications this has for the overall level of funding. [117162]

  Clare Short
  Commitments from our emergency and humanitarian programme ended on 31 March. However, we shall continue to support the international organisations working in Kosovo and to provide funds for demining. Our bilateral programme in Kosovo will focus on the provision of technical assistance to support capacity and institution building for long-term development, in liaison with UNMIK and departments of the Joint Interim Administration. We plan to provide such support in the areas of economic restructuring, public administration, social policy, media and elections, health and development of civil society. We shall commit £15 million to these activities over the next three years. We also provide approximately 18 per cent. of the cost of the EU programme, amounting to approximately £39 million of the EU's 360 million euro programme in 2000.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the contribution funded from her Department for the reconstruction of Kosovo since June 1999; and if she will list the levels of the contribution of(a) other EU member states,(b) Canada and(c) the USA. [117161]

  Clare Short
  We have committed £119 million in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in 1999 and 2000. A further £15 million is available this year for support to the international relief agencies and for demining. Over the same period, other member states have provided a total of 1.1 euros in bilateral assistance. Canada has reported total commitments of 104 million Canadian dollars in reconstruction and humanitarian assistance for the period April 1999 to March 2001. The United States has committed a total of $264.1 million for 1999 and 2000. The equivalent figure for European Community assistance is 802.7 million euros, of which the UK share (currently 18 per cent.) is approximately £84.58 million.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which Minister in her Department has responsibility for regulatory reform; and if she will make a statement. [117426]

  Clare Short
  The Under-Secretary has responsibility for regulatory reform within my Department.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Secondary Legislation
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the President of the Council how many statutory instruments and other items of secondary legislation were passed in each of the years 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1999. [117953]
  583W
  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is as follows:

  Session

  Number of instruments subject to parliamentary procedure laid before Parliament (including special procedure orders)

  Number of affirmative instruments approved by the House of Commons

  1980–81

  1940

  149

  1985–86

  11,024

  155

  1990–91

  1,279

  181

  1998–99

  1,445

  178

  1 Indicate the number of instruments considered by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments rather than those laid.

TREASURY

  Research and Development
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his measures to help companies with research and development. [116619]

  Mr. Timms
  Our new research and development tax credit, introduced on 1 April, has been warmly welcomed by the CBI and others since its announcement a year ago. We received representations emphasising the importance of incentives for research and development in small and medium-sized firms, and so that is where the credit is being targeted. We have also decided, responding to representations, that the credit should be available as well to companies not yet trading. It will benefit 4,500 companies and support almost £1 billion for research and development per year.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families that qualified for the married couples allowance in 1999–2000 will not qualify for the child tax credit in 2001–02. [116620]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many married couples that qualified for the married couples allowance in 1999–2000 will not qualify for the child tax credit in 2001–02. [116626]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of measures we have taken in this and previous Budgets, pensioner households will from next April be on average £400 a year better off, and families with children will be on average £850 a year better off; and the number of couples liable for higher rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of married couples allowance will be zero.

  VAT (Historic Buildings)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received calling for a reduction in the VAT rate for repairs and conservation work to churches and other historic buildings. [116621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since February, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have received about 5,000 letters, mainly from parishioners in Cornwall,
  584W
  asking for a reduced rate for repairs to churches. A number of letters have also been received asking for a reduced rate for historic buildings.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to improve employment incentives for the long-term unemployed. [116622]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his recent Budget a variety of measures to help encourage the long-term unemployed back into work. These include:Expanding and strengthening the New Deal 25 plus to bring into line the rights and responsibilities for those over 25 that have so effectively helped those under 25 in the New Deal for Young People;
  Employment Zones and Action Teams to begin work with long-term unemployed people in the most deprived areas of the country to help them to address the barriers which are preventing them from finding work;
  The Working Families Tax Credit which will deliver a minimum income guarantee of £214 for a family with someone in full-time work from April 2001; and
  The new Job Grant, alongside Housing Benefit and Income Support Mortgage Interest run ons, which are easing the transition into work from benefits.

  Alongside these the Government have also announced that from October the adult rate of the National Minimum Wage will be increased to £3.70 per hour, continuing to ensure greater decency and fairness in the workplace and making work pay.

  G8 (Debt Cancellation)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he is having about further multilateral debt cancellation with G8 colleagues in advance of the G8 Finance Ministers' meeting. [116623]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Discussions about the multilateral Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative take place among G7 members on an on-going basis. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will discuss progress and implementation of the enhanced HIPC initiative at the G7 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on 15 April, and in the run-up to the Okinawa Summit.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on the average family of his withdrawal of tax allowances to date. [116624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Taking all measures together, personal tax and benefit changes in this and previous Budgets will mean that by April 2001:On average families with children will be £850 a year better off; A single-earner family on average earnings and with two children will be £370 a year better off;
  A single-earner family on half average earnings and with two children will be £2,600 a year better off; and
  The tax burden on a single-earner family on average earnings and with two children will be the lowest since 1972.
  585W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers will be liable for higher rate tax as a result of the withdrawal of tax allowances in his Budgets to date. [116627]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in the total(a) indirect and (b) direct tax burden on families of his Budget measures to date. [116625]

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the change in the total(a) indirect and (b) direct tax burden on families of his Budget measures to date. [116639]

  Dawn Primarolo

  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures introduced by this Government, the tax burden on a typical single earner couple on average earnings with two children will fall from 21.5 in 1996–97 to 18.8 by 2001, the lowest level since 1972.

  Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income, with the consumption of the majority of goods and services far from universal. For example, only around one third of adults are smokers, just over half the adult population are in households paying vehicle excise duty and around 10 per cent. of households pay air passenger duty. This can be contrasted with direct taxes and benefits where at specified earnings and for particular household types there is a known benefit entitlement or tax liability.

  National Changeover Plan
  Sir Nicholas Lye11
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received in connection with the National Changeover Plan; and if he will make a statement. [116629]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government work with a wide range of organisations from the private, public and voluntary sectors on changeover planning. A list of the private and voluntary sector organisations involved in Working Groups is given on page 57 of the second Outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 March.

  Fuel Duty
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of fuel duty revenues in 2000–01. [116630]

  Mr. Timms
  The projection for fuel duty revenues in 2000–01 is published in Table C9, Page 203 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost in the current financial year to the Exchequer of Regional Development Agencies. [116632]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Regional Development Agencies have taken on responsibility for a number of Government programmes, including the Single
  586W
  Regeneration Budget and programmes formerly run by English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission. Including all their programme expenditure, the eight RDAs in England have been allocated an overall budget of £958,373,000 for 2000–01. This includes planned recyclable receipts of £145,094,000.

  Manufacturing (Knitted Goods)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timetable for the publication of the Office for National Statistics 1999 figures for manufacturers' sales of hosiery and other knitted goods to the public. [116633]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Tredinnick, dated 6 April 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the publication of 1999 manufacturers' sales figures of Hosiery and other knitted goods.
  Detailed product data from the 1999 quarterly PRODucts of the European COMmunity (PRODCOM) survey of manufacturers' sales of knitted and crocheted articles will be published in a Business Monitor at the end of May 2000.
  Provisional results of the 1999 Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) are expected to be published in December 2000. This News Release will contain values for turnover, purchases and gross value added for the textile and textile products industry. More detailed industry results, including those for the manufacture of knitted and crocheted articles, will be published in the summer of 2001.

  Employment (South-East)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policies on the levels of employment and unemployment in the South-East in the last two years. [116636]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the South-East, as in the rest of the UK, we have created a sound and credible platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. In the last two years, employment in the South-East has risen by 125,000, and ILO unemployment has fallen by 14,000, both broadly in line with UK trends.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the horticulture sector on the impact of the climate change levy. [116637]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a number of representations from the horticultural sector on the climate change levy. In the light of these and other representations, a package of measures aimed at improving energy efficiency in the horticultural sector, while protecting its competitiveness, was announced in the Budget. These measures include:

  A special package of energy efficiency measures for horticulture, to be allocated from the £50 million energy efficiency fund.

  587W

  Extending the list of investments qualifying for enhanced capital allowances to include thermal screens used in glasshouses

  A temporary 50 per cent. discount on the levy for a period of up to five years while energy efficiency measures take effect.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the amendment to the climate change levy which he announced in the Budget. [116631]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of further refinements to the design of the climate change levy in the recent Budget. These will increase the levy's environmental effectiveness while protecting the competitiveness of UK firms.

  Many of the representations received since the Budget have welcomed these refinements.

  Public Services
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase investment in public services(a) in the UK and (b) in London in the year 2000–01. [116638]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All areas of the UK, including London, will benefit from the Budget announcement of an additional £2 billion for health, £1 billion for education, £285 million for the fight against crime and £280 million for transport. All but £100 million of this investment is for 2000–01.

  Secretaries of State are announcing the detail of these allocations. The Deputy Prime Minister has already announced £65 million of investment in London Underground to enhance escalator work and frequency and reliability of Northern, Central, District and Jubilee lines and £30 million for the Docklands Light Railway extension to City Airport.

  Working Families Tax Credit (North-west Region)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many inquiries have been received by the Working Families Tax Credit response line from the north west region. [116618]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The response line handled 780,000 inquiries up to 30 November 1999. A breakdown by TV region is available for 670,000 of them; of these, 89,000 came from the Granada TV region.

  Migration (London)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the level of migration from the London area to the South East region in each of the last 10 years. [117787]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Archie Norman, dated 6 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question about the estimated migration from London to the South East region for each of the last ten years. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  588W
  The attached table presents the information that you require. The latest year for which estimates are available is 1998. Data are presented for moves from London to the South East Planning Region. The estimates of internal migration within the United Kingdom are based on the movement of NHS doctor's patients between the former Family Health Service Authorities. They should not be regarded as a perfect measure of migration as there is variation in the delay between a person moving and registering with a new doctor.

  Migration from London to the South East Planning Region

  Thousand

  Year

  Number of migrants

  1989

  109.8

  1990

  93.7

  1991

  108.3

  1992

  111.0

  1993

  114.3

  1994

  119.4

  1995

  118.5

  1996

  125.8

  1997

  132.0

  1998

  129.7

  Source:

  NHSCR

  Population Growth (South-east)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecast his Department has made of the population growth in the South East Planning Region in the next five years. [117788]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Archie Norman, dated 6 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on the projected population growth in the South East Planning Region. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  These projections show population levels would result if assumptions about future migration, fertility and mortality were exactly realised. The assumptions underlying the calculation of the projections are based on recent demographic trends and do not reflect the impact of future local policies.
  The latest subnational population projections are published in Subnational population projections: 1996 based, Series PP3, no.10, which is available in the House of Commons Library.
  The table below present the information that you require.

  Population projections 1999–2006

  Thousand

  Projection year

  Projected population

  1999

  11,242.0

  2000

  11,302.6

  2001

  11,362.4

  2002

  11,420.9

  2003

  11,477.6

  2004

  11,532.6

  2005

  11,586.0

  2006

  11,637.9

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) total liabilities
  589W
  outstanding under PFI contracts and (b) net public debt over the period 2000–01 to 2004–05 if PFI liabilities were accounted for as debt; and if he will make a statement. [117368]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to table C15 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, laid before this House on 21 March 2000.

  Table C15 shows a forecast of the estimated payments for services flowing from new private investment in signed and imminent PFI contacts over the 28 years from 1998–99 to 2025/26; and contains details of payments to PFI contractors from 2000–01 to 2004–05. These payments score as current expenditure and thus are already factored into future spending projections and of spending and borrowing (as set out in table C4).

  Hydrocarbon Fuel Levies
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue to the Exchequer of all duties levied on hydrocarbon fuels in the 1996–97 financial year; and what was the figure for 1999–2000. [117671]

  Mr. Timms
  The revenue from excise duty on hydrocarbon oils for 1996–97 is published in Table K2 of HM Customs and Excise Annual Report. The table does not include VAT receipts. The figure for 1999–2000 is not available yet.

  Petrol Taxes
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total tax levied on a litre of standard unleaded petrol on 1 May 1997; and what it is currently. [117672]

  Mr. Timms
  The total tax (excise duty plus VAT) levied on a litre of standard unleaded petrol on 1 May 1997 was about 46p and that levied at the end of March 2000 was about 61p. Most of the duty increase is accounted for by the operation of the fuel duty escalator, which is no longer being applied.

  Charitable Shares Donations
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to change the tax treatment of shares donated to charity. [116604]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a radical package of measures aimed at Getting Britain Giving. The package included a new tax relief on gifts to a charity of certain qualifying investments.

  Qualifying investments include:

  shares or securities which are listed or dealt in on a recognised stock exchange;

  units in an authorised unit trust;

  shares in an open ended investment company; and an interest in an offshore fund.

  The donor will be able to claim a corporation tax or income tax deduction for the full market value of the gift, plus incidental expenses of transfer, less any consideration
  590W
  or benefit received. The new relief will be in addition to the existing relief for gifts of shares and other assets to a charity when calculating capital gains.

  The new relief comes into effect for gifts made on or after 1 April 2000 for companies and 6 April 2000 for individuals.

  Tax Benefit Reference Manual
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will place the next edition of the Tax Benefit Reference Manual in the Library. [117827]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 29 March 2000,Official Report, column 150W.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks are applied to confirm the identities of new employees in the Contributions Agency. [117721]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A series of checks were undertaken within the Contributions Agency.

  Mobile Phone Licences
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the estimates of Government receipts in his Budget statement include revenue raised from the sale of mobile phone licences; and if he will make a statement. [117369]

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for utilising the receipts of the auction of mobile telephone licences. [118102]

  Dawn Primarolo

  [holding answer 4 April 2000]: An estimate of the effect of proceeds from the auction of mobile phone licences is included in the Budget public finances forecast, and taken account of in the Budget tax and spending plans. The auction proceeds will have only a limited impact on the main fiscal aggregates such as the current surplus and public sector net borrowing because, in line with National Accounts conventions, the revenues raised are accrued evenly across the full length of the licence period.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances immigration officers will be requesting passenger information from carriers under paragraph 27B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by section 18 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and if he will make a statement. [118485]

  Mrs. Roche
  The types of information which may be requested are set out in the Schedule to the Immigration (Passenger Information) Order 2000. The information specified in Part I of the Schedule to the Order is contained in the machine-readable zone of passports and visas. Provision of this information is essential if we are
  591W
  to be able to grant or refuse entry to passengers in advance of their arrival in the United Kingdom. We have set out what we propose by way of such flexibilities in the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order laid before Parliament on 30 March 2000. We would expect to come to a mutual agreement with carriers as to the routes for which we might start to require Part I information and as to when the requirement would start. Beyond this, we would seek Part I information only on specific occasions for intelligence purposes. We would endeavour to keep such requests to a minimum. The information specified in Part II of the Schedule will be requested only where the carrier is in possession of it. However, we think it might take some time for carriers to put systems in place to allow them to provide us with any significant volume of information, so we will implement the new power gradually over the coming months. We will continue in this spirit of co-operation, but ultimately we reserve the right to insist upon the provision of passenger information under the new powers wherever we have good reason in the context of the immigration control.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last two years for which figures are available, what was the total amount of funding for asylum seekers' support(a) in total, (b) per head of population, (c) per income tax payer, (d) per household and (e) as a percentage of total Government expenditure; what are the estimated figures for 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [117982]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1998–99, support for asylum seekers was the responsibility of the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. The Department of Health states that the total payments for supporting asylum seekers were £190 million in 1998–99. The Department of Social Security estimate that, subject to audit, the total benefits paid to asylum seekers will be £285 million.

  Since 1 April 1999, the Home Office has been responsible for a single budget for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of supporting adult asylum seekers and families. Reimbursement of local authority costs relating to unaccompanied children remained the responsibility of the Department of Health. Total payments to local authorities and reimbursement for the Department of Social Security costs for 1999–2000 are estimated to be £597 million subject to audit.

  The information available is that the estimated population is 58.8 million, the estimated number of tax payers is 27.9 million and the estimated number of households is 24.2 million. The total managed public expenditure in 1998–99 is £331 billion, and in 1999–2000 it is £345.2 billion. On that basis, the breakdown of costs for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 requested is given in the table.

  Asylum support costs

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  £475 million

  £597 million

  Per head of population

  £8.08

  £10.14

  Per income taxpayer

  £17.02

  £21.38

  Per household

  £19.63

  £24.64

  As a percentage of total managed public expenditure

  0.14

  0.17

  592W
  The Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998 set a provisional Home Office allocation for 2000–01 of £300 million for the cost of asylum support for adults and families and £3 million for the Department of Health. The total managed public expenditure in 2000–01 is £370.9 billion.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the means by which those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, who are currently outside the United Kingdom, can lawfully enter the United Kingdom to claim asylum without causing any others to commit any offence in assisting with their arrival in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [117995]

  Mrs. Roche
  A person who claims asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom and is subsequently granted leave to enter will, by definition, have entered the United Kingdom lawfully. A person who obtains leave to enter without disclosing an intention to claim asylum may, depending on the circumstances, be guilty of an offence of seeking leave to enter by deception. In either case, the actions of the asylum seeker do not of themselves cause any other person to commit an offence, but depending on the circumstances an offence may arise if the asylum seeker's entry was facilitated by another person.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals were lodged by him against the granting of judicial review of asylum decisions in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how many appeals were upheld; what was the total cost to public funds in each year of such appeals; on how many occasions Queen's Counsel were employed by(a) him and (b) the respondent; and if he will make a statement. [115970]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 March 2000]: The information requested is available only for the past three years and is shown in the table:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Number of cases

  2

  0

  3

  Appeal upheld

  1

  —

  1.2—

  Appeal dismissed

  1

  —

  1

  Queen 's Counsel employed by both parties

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Costs

  £66,884

  —

  £63,104

  1One appeal was withdrawn

  2One appeal not yet heard

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the cost of(a) vouchers, (b) accommodation for asylum seekers and (c) other administrative costs relating to them in each of the last three years. [117051]

  Mrs. Roche
  None.

  The information available is that in 1997–98 and 1998–99 grant payments for the support of asylum seekers were the responsibility of the Department of Health. In 1997–98, the grant payment by the Department of Health was £139,202 million. Costs such as administrative costs are amalgamated into the actual payments made to Local Authorities.
  593W
  The Department of Health is currently reconciling, in the light of the audit certificate now being provided, the amount claimed by authorities and the payments made to authorities in 1998–99. It is, therefore, not possible at the moment to give the information for 1998–99.

  Since 1 April 1999, the Home Office has been responsible for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of supporting asylum seekers. Costs for the period 1 April–5 December 1999 are on the basis of a Special Grant. Local authorities may claim the costs incurred, within cost limits, in supporting asylum seekers. Local Authorities claimed a total of £183,177,970 for the period l April-5 December 1999. These claims will be subject to audit by District Auditors and may be subject to variation in the light of the findings of auditors. Full information for the period 6 December 1999–31 March 2000 is not yet available.

  How these resources are allocated is a matter for each individual Local Authority.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the cost of police arrests and deportations of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in each of the last three years. [117049]

  Mrs. Roche
  The costs of police arrests of asylum seekers and the costs of deportations of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are not available.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received in 1999; and what proportion of those applicants came from Sri Lanka. [117643]

  Mrs. Roche
  The total number of asylum applications to the United Kingdom in 1999 was 71,160. 5,130 (7 per cent.) were from nationals of Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanism is used for reimbursing local authorities for costs incurred in respect of the dispersal of asylum seekers. [117297]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 1 April 1999, the Home Office has been responsible for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of supporting asylum seekers. Payment is by way of grant. Under the interim regulations, local authorities may claim the costs incurred in supporting asylum seekers. These claims will be paid within cost limits and are subject to audit by District Auditors. For those asylum seekers who will remain the responsibility of local authorities, these arrangements will continue.

  For those asylum seekers now being dealt with under the new arrangements phased in from 3 April 2000, local authorities that sign contracts with the National Asylum Support Service will submit an invoice for payment.

  Bingo Charges
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to simplify the current system of bingo charges. [118484]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have laid an Order (The Gaming Clubs (Hours and Charges) Regulations 2000), in the House to simplify the current system of bingo charging.
  594W
  The current system of charges is set out in section 3 of the Gaming Clubs (Hours and Charges) Regulations 1984. It prescribes the amount bingo operators may charge by way of admission and participation fees for games during any period of play of up to two hours (currently £10 exclusive of Value Added Tax). It also sets out how the charges should be displayed. The arrangements for the charging notices are, however, complex and in practice most players will not know in advance of deciding to play what charge is being made for an individual game.

  The Home Office, therefore, proposes to make regulations that will establish a statutorily based notification system that will specify the form in which participation and any other charges must be notified so that they are transparent and easily understood. Notices will be displayed at the main point where payment for the charges is to be made.

  The regulations will also allow a charge to be made for admission to a bingo club not exceeding £10 per day which will be displayed at, or near, the principal entrance to the premises and a charge to be made for participation in a game of bingo not exceeding £5 for each chance in playing the game. These are upper limits; in practice operators will set far lower charges than this.

  The measure will extend to Scotland.

  A copy of the Regulatory Impact Assessment has been placed in the Library.

  Detective Keith Pedder
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 380W, on Keith Pedder (117016), for what reason he was unable to list the powers under which documents were seized. [117964]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Keith Pedder are currently under investigation. For this reason he does not consider it would be appropriate for him to comment on any aspect of the case.

  Offshore Banking
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) the Channel Islands and (b) the Isle of Man of the report of the Primarolo Group to the ECOFIN Council on 29 November 1999; what plans he has to implement the report's recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [117987]

  Mr. Straw
  The Report of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation lists 66 tax measures in European Union member states and their dependent or associated territories which are considered to have harmful features. Fifteen of these are in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The United Kingdom is committed to encouraging its dependencies to tackle unfair tax competition. The Code of Conduct on which the Group's work has been based is a voluntary non-legally binding agreement. We would expect to discuss the Report with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, of 15 March 2000,Official Report, columns 177-79W, following the Budget announcement on the Crime Fighting Fund, what estimate he has made of the (a) planned recruitment to, (b) expected wastage from and (c) change in police numbers in police forces, including transfers, including information provided in the bids for the Crime Fighting Fund and the allocation of Crime Fighting Fund money, (i) in total and (ii) in each of the next three years; what estimate he has made of the expected change in police numbers in each force and in total between March 1997 and the end of each of the first three years of the Crime Fighting Fund; and if he will make a statement; [117985]

  (2) how much additional money has been allocated to the Crime Fighting Fund for (a) police recruitment and (b) each other area, in each of the three years following the Budget; what is the new total allocation to the Crime Fighting Fund for (i) police recruitment and (ii) each other area in total for each year and in total for those three years; and if he will make a statement. [117981]

  Mr. Straw

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1-3W.

  Assuming a minimum of 2,000 additional recruits in 2000–01 under the accelerated Crime Fighting Fund, and 3,000 the following year, the overall projections for total police numbers, given in my reply to the hon. Member on 15 March 2000, Official Report, columns 177-79W, would rise to 125,500 by March 2001 and 127,000 by March 2002.

  My officials are consulting police service and police authority representatives on the revised allocation of new recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund to be made to forces following my announcement on 27 March that the programme would be brought forward to deliver all 5,000 recruits within two years. I will make a further announcement shortly.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 27 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1-3W, if the £21 million announced for the video recording of interviews will permit the video recording of all police interviews; if video recording facilities will be available in all interview rooms which currently have audio recording facilities; how the video recordings will be stored, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [117997]

  Mr. Straw
  The £21 million allocation for the purchase of equipment by police forces for the video recording of interviews with suspects will be drawn on subject to the evaluation of an initial pilot scheme following the enactment of the necessary parliamentary legislation. Detailed questions of coverage and storage will be dealt with in the light of experience of the pilots.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr. Cunningham), of
  596W
  27 March 2000, Official Report, column 1-3W, (1) how many additional recruits will be provided in 2000–01 as a result of the £11 million for doubling the number to be recruited during the coming financial year; what base he used to determine that recruitment would be doubled as a result of the additional £11 million; and if he will make a statement; [117992]

  (2) what proportion of the £91 million will be used to assist police forces in England and Wales with recruitment and retention; what funding will be provided to each force, and for what purposes; and if he will make a statement; [117984]

  (3) how many police recruits are to be recruited (a) in total and (b) using funding from the Crime Fighting Fund in each police force area in England and Wales in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03, respectively; [117991]

  (4) what proportion of the £91 million for modernising policing will be used to finance the national police recruiting campaign; when the campaign will begin; and if he will make a statement. [117990]

  Mr. Straw
  As a result of the budget announcement, we now anticipate recruiting at least 2,000 officers under the Crime Fighting Fund in 2000–01, with the remainder of the 5,000 in the following year. These numbers will be in addition to the projected recruitment notified to us by Chief Constables in their bids for a share of the Crime Fighting Fund.

  Following my announcement on 27 March, my officials are consulting police service and police authority representatives on how the 5,000 additional recruits will be delivered over two years rather than three. I will make a further announcement shortly about this and other funding to assist forces who are having difficulties with recruitment and retention, including the development of a national recruitment campaign.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 27 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1-3W, if he will make a statement on the timetable for the establishment of the Government Technical Assistance Centre. [117998]

  Mr. Straw
  I announced in my earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) that we will be using £25 million of capital modernisation funding to establish a Government Technical Assistance Centre (GTAC) to provide law enforcement agencies with the capability to derive intelligence and evidence from new information and communications technologies. This funding will be made available over this financial year and next and will pay for the design and development of a system for processing a wide range of computer-to-computer communications and stored data formats. GTAC will begin to operate in 2001–02 and reach full operating capability during 2002–03.

  Miss Widdecombe

  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 27 March 2000,Official Report,
  597W
  columns 1-3W, how the £40 million for modernising the prison estate is to be spent; and if he will make a statement. [117999]

  Mr. Straw
  The additional £40 million for prisons which I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1-3W, will enable a start to be made on a programme to increase prison capacity to meet the projected increase in the prison population. The programme will include further building within existing prisons, and making better use of existing capacity by re-roleing prisons where the change in composition of the prison population makes this necessary. I will write to the right hon. Member with the details as soon as they are finalised.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to Note 5 attached to Home Office Press Release 070/2000, what discussions he has had with the bodies mentioned in the Note about the way in which the £91 million for modernising policing is to be allocated; and if he will make a statement. [117988]

  Mr. Straw
  My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000,Official Report, columns 1-3W, indicated the areas where the additional £91 million funds may be allocated. I will be consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Local Government Association and the police staff associations before announcing final decisions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 27 March 2000, columns 1-3W, what plans he has to allocate the full amount of £34 million announced by the Prime Minister in September 1999 for the expansion of the DNA database. [117996]

  Mr. Straw
  The funding of £34 million is being allocated to police forces across England and Wales to enable them to double the number of submissions to the National DNA Database over the next two years. By April 2002, the database should hold approximately 1.5 million DNA offender profiles.

  This funding represents a first step towards the Government's aim that the database should hold the DNA profiles of the whole of the active criminal population, estimated to be in the region of three million.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of funding for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project will be provided by a deduction from the police grant provision over each year of the project; what assessment he has made of the impact on police forces' budgets and on frontline service provision; what representations he has received on the matter; and if he will make a statement. [117989]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The cost of the core service for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) represents approximately 80 per cent. of the total service charges for police forces in England and
  598W
  Wales. This is to be funded centrally by means of deduction from total police grant provision. The forecast core service charges for the period 2000–01 are estimated at £4.4 million. This estimate is currently under review in the light of current plans for the roll-out to forces. Other estimates were provided in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 13 March 2000, Official Report, columns 87-92W.

  The impact on police forces' budgets and on frontline service provision will depend on the outcome of Spending Review 2000.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have frequent discussions with police authority representatives and chief constables about police resources, including funding for PSRCP. In addition, my officials and I have had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities about the funding of PSRCP.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animal (scientific procedures) inspectors appointed under section 18 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are in post; how many of them are former licence-holders under the Act; how many establishments under sections 6 and 7 they cover; and how many regulated procedures were carried out for the last year for which figures are available. [117802]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectors are full-time civil servants. No inspector holds a licence. None has involvement in animal research. None has conflicts of interest linking him to places or persons regulated under the Act or his programmes of work. Twenty-one Inspectors are currently in post, 17 of whom have been previously licensed under the 1986 Act.

  Annexe B of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 1998 confirms that of the 286 certificates of designation active on 31 December 1998, 284 were registered as user establishments, 170 as breeding establishments and 75 as supplying establishments. There is a disparity in these figures because a single establishment may hold its certificate of designation in more than one category. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate monitors all of these establishments.

  Table 1 of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 1998 shows that 2,659,662 scientific procedures were carried out on animals during that year.

  Figures for 1999 are currently being compiled and will be published in July.

  Immigration Control
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the cost of(a) staff, (b) premises and (c) detection equipment for the Immigration Service for immigration control in each of the last three years. [117047]
  599W
  Mrs. Roche
  The information on staff and premises costs for the operation of the on-entry immigration control is given in the table.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Staff

  Premises

  1997–98

  76.11

  7.58

  1998–99

  77.28

  8.43

  1999–2000

  180.25

  18.71

  1 Forecast

  Over the last three years, the Immigration Service has spent over £300,000 on forgery detection equipment, over £110,000 on body detection dogs and associated equipment and, in the last year, £6,000 on CO2 detectors.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the cost of immigration detention centres and prison places for immigration detainees in each of the last three years. [117050]

  Mrs. Roche
  The cost of operating the dedicated immigration detention centres is estimated to be in the region of £11.4 million in the current financial year. Previous years' figures are not available as the costs had not been recorded separately. The Prison Service Statistics (England and Wales) show the number of detainees held in prisons under the 1971 Immigration Act as at 30 June of each year. Figures for the last three years are: 30 June 1997—476; 30 June 1998—477; and 30 June 1999—490. The average total cost per prison place in each of these years was: 1997–98: £23,940; 1998–99: £25,096; 1999–2000: £25,567.

  Deportation
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders were made in 1999; and how many have been carried out. [117218]

  Mrs. Roche
  Provisional data indicate that 610 deportation orders were signed and 510 were enforced during 1999. It should be noted that a deportation order enforced in one year may have been signed in an earlier year. Deportation orders may not be immediately enforceable for legal reasons or because of other barriers to removal such as inadequate documentation. There are also cases where a deportation order has been signed but it is later decided that deportation is no longer appropriate.

  Sex Offenders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 have been released on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme to date; what offences they committed; what was the sentence(a) received and (b) served in each case; and if he will make a statement. [117718]

  Mr. Straw

  [holding answer 5 April 2000]: As of 3 April, one prisoner subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 has been released on the Home Detention Curfew scheme. The original offence of which the prisoner was convicted was unlawful sexual intercourse with a female aged 15. The prisoner received a sentence of six months and served a sentence of 35 days.
  600W
  Sex offenders subject to the 1997 Act may be released on Home Detention Curfew only in exceptional circumstances and in all such cases only with the consent of the Director General. In this case, the requirement was not followed by the prison establishment concerned and the eligibility date was calculated wrongly; the prisoner was released after 35 days instead of the 46 days that should have been served.

  I have asked the Director General for a report. He has advised me that, wholly contrary to the procedure put in place by Ministers, his approval was not sought in this case. Furthermore, the period of the sentence to be served was reduced by 11 days as a result of an administrative error. The administrative procedures have now been strengthened and the Director General has written to all establishments reminding them of the particular considerations that apply to sex offenders subject to the provisions of the 1997 Act and the requirement at all times to seek his consent.

  While this failure to follow the correct procedures is highly regrettable, I am satisfied that in this case there was no risk to the public, nor has the offender concerned been arrested, charged or convicted of any further offence.

  Korean Airlines Crash
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will compensate the Essex Police Authority for the costs incurred following the recent crash of a Korean Airlines plane at Stansted Airport. [117939]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No special payment will be made to Essex Police Authority for any costs incurred following the recent crash of a Korean Airlines plane at Stansted Airport. Essex Police Authority has sought assistance to meet the estimated cost of £343,000 for this exercise. Police forces are, however, funded and are expected to make provision for unexpected events of this size.

  I have, however, provided a special grant of £2 million to the force towards the cost of policing the more recent hijack at Stansted.

  Europol
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances officers in Europol will be authorised to carry arms when engaged in operations in the United Kingdom. [117577]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Europol officers have no such operational powers and do not carry arms in the course of their duties.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what operations have been carried out jointly by Europol and police in the United Kingdom. [117584]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There have been no such operations carried out in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) where the training college for Europol will be established: [117579]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the purpose of the training college for Europol. [117578]
  601W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no plans to establish a training college for Europol. The Tampere European Council in October 1999 agreed that a European Police College should be established for the training of senior law enforcement officials, starting as a network of existing national training institutes. Proposed objectives for the network include strengthening knowledge of existing European Union instruments in the area of law enforcement, improving co-operation and co-ordination between European Union law enforcement training institutes with regard to European and cross-border co-operation and providing training for law enforcement agencies of Accession states. The United Kingdom has offered to host the secretariat for the network. Its location is yet to be decided.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Europol officers operating in the United Kingdom will wear a uniform. [117583]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Europol staff have no such operational powers and do not wear uniforms in the course of their duties.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a United Kingdom police force can refuse to carry out an operation proposed to be carried out under provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [117575]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The United Kingdom's application to participate in the police co-operation provisions of the Schengen Implementing Convention, which has been incorporated by the Treaty of Amsterdam into the Treaty on European Union, is still under negotiation. Measures under Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union on joint teams involving Europol are still under discussion.

  Police forces in the United Kingdom attach importance to assisting, and being assisted by, counterpart authorities abroad in criminal investigations and proceedings. The decision on whether to seek or provide such assistance is for individual chief officers of police. In general, assistance will be provided, in accordance with domestic law and procedures, but it may be withheld in exceptional circumstances, for example, on grounds of national security. The police co-operation provisions in the Schengen Implementing Convention and the Treaty on European Union will not affect this current practice.

  Vivisection
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the confidentiality agreement between his Department and the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in relation to offences committed under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. [117710]
  602W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The main provisions of the confidentiality agreement stipulated that the material it covered should not be disclosed to anyone other than Home Office Ministers and officials without the prior written approval of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). I am advised that these provisions would have been unenforceable in law should any attempt have been made to use the agreement to suppress evidence of criminal offences or prevent its disclosure to the police authorities or Crown Prosecution Service.

  The confidentiality agreement was entered into in July 1999 in order to obtain information to enable a full Home Office investigation of the allegations made by the BUAV against HarlandUK. I do not consider that it set a helpful precedent. The most careful consideration would be necessary before an agreement of this nature could be entered into again should similar circumstances arise in the future.

  Although in evidence in the consultation on Freedom of Information, they made representations that the Home Office should have a presumption against enforcing such an agreement, the BUAV requested such an agreement in connection with this case.

  Drug Laws
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the report of the Police Foundation Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; and if he will make a statement. [117606]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government welcome the report by the Police Foundation. The report contains 81 recommendations which the Government will be considering over the coming months. However, the Government are not currently persuaded that the classification or overall legal framework for LSD, ecstasy or cannabis should be changed.

  Somali Refugees
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Somali nationals previously granted exceptional leave to remain and who have submitted upgrade applications for full refugee status have received a decision on their case in each month since the House of Lords judgment on the Adan case; [117794]

  (2) how many asylum applications received from Somali nationals in each of the years 1998 and 1999 were upgrade applications from an applicant previously granted exceptional leave to remain. [117795]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on the number of decisions made or the number of applications lodged by Somali nationals requesting an upgrading to full refugee status is not held centrally. Such information would be obtained only by examining individual case papers at disproportionate cost.

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

FV432 Armoured Ambulance: Radio Specification
Earl Attleeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What radio is fitted to the Army's FV432 armoured ambulance.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as I have advised previously, on 23rd February 2000, the radio fitted to the Army's FV432 armoured ambulance is the Clansman VRC353.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she recall declining to answer my Written Question about the range of the radio on the grounds of national security, even though this equipment can be purchased privately? Is she aware that the range of the radio is given in the Army's staff officers' handbook? Does she recall her Written Answer of 22nd March to my noble friend Lord Stewartby, when she stated that the staff officers' handbook is not a classified document—presumably because there is nothing classified in it—although it includes the range of the radio? Will the Minister review her decision to withhold this information—or is the answer too embarrassing?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the answer is not embarrassing at all. From his extensive experience in the military, I am sure that the noble Earl is aware that, when answering such questions, Ministers take into account not only the information they are giving in response to individual questions but the sum total of the information that is being put into the public domain at any one time. These matters are monitored very closely in the Ministry of Defence. So it is not only individual questions that are looked at but the full range of information. In withholding any information from any of your Lordships, I always take proper advice from those who understand the security implications of that is being asked.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can the Minister reassure me about the rumours that troops in Kosovo sometimes had to rely on mobile telephones rather than supplied equipment?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the shortcomings of the Clansman radio did not jeopardise the lives of our troops in Kosovo. Procedures were in place to ensure
1412
sufficient levels of availability and security. But the Clansman radio is not as effective as we should like for a modern, war-fighting army. That is why we are making plans to replace it with the Bowman radio system, which is a complete digitised system. I am not talking about individual radios but about a complete digitised communications system which we hope will be introduced towards the end of 2003/beginning of 2004. In the meantime, we have advanced to next year the introduction of the personalised radio element of the system.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to answer my noble friend's question about mobile phones? We all remember the repercussions of an interception of a radio phone message concerning the right honourable gentleman Richard Needham.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not sure that there were those who had mobile phones during the encounter in Kosovo. I can assure the noble Lord that the utmost care is taken over the security of all communications, particularly when the lives of our servicemen and servicewomen are at risk. Those who have been lucky enough to see some of the presentations about the lessons learnt from Kosovo will know the very high store that was put on security of communications. It is because we have been so concerned about that matter that the Government, under SMART procurement, are bringing forward the personalised element of the radio system. It is also the reason for introducing the Polygon secure radio system, which is currently being used for communications in Kosovo.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, when communicating with the present Clansman system, operators have to engage in a manual encryption system to send secure messages? If so, can she assure the House that Bowman will be fully digitised and capable of encrypting digitally as well as in other respects?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as far as I am aware, the encryption system is a manual one. If there were other systems used, I shall tell the noble Lord about them if I am able to do so under the advice that I am given on security of systems and the information that may be put into the public domain. As I made clear to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is certainly no part of my job to withhold information that can properly be in the public domain. Information is withheld only when it is proper that it should be. As to Bowman, that will be a fully digitised system. We are still working on important security elements of the system and on what will be the encryption procedures. It is not yet fully developed but, as soon as we are able to say anything that can be put into the public domain, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we shall do so.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this ineffective radio is fitted to the Mark II Challenger tank, our main battle tank, and that it is used in that capacity?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not an ineffective radio; it is not as good as we would wish it to be. I am sorry to say to the noble Lord that the plans for replacing this radio were some 75 months behind programme when this Government entered office. When we talk about the defects of the radio and the defects that were apparent in Kosovo, it must be remembered that we would not have to say such unhappy things about the effects in Kosovo had effective action been taken by the previous administration.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in these days of open government and freedom of information, does the Minister realise the happiness and pleasure it gives when she states that she does withhold some information? There are certain aspects of information which many of us think ought to be retained by the Government as secrets of government. In no way do we wish to see such secrets divulged any more than they should be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Therefore, my Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will be very relieved to see that there is no intention on the part of the Government to put any information into the public domain which would in any way compromise the security of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, our servicemen work alongside the servicemen of other NATO nations. When Bowman is introduced, can the Minister assure the House that communications between our servicemen, using Bowman, and the NATO forces working alongside them, will be secure and readily available?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is as aware as I am about the importance of inter-operability in current military situations, where we almost always work alongside the forces of allies. I assure the noble and gallant Lord that, in developing the Bowman system, we are looking not only at ways of communicating within Her Majesty's Armed Forces but also at ways of communicating effectively and securely with our allies. That is enormously important.

Teacher Training: Recruitment
3.9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have been increases in the number of (a) students training to be teachers of mathematics, science and modern languages and (b) persons recruited from other professions to be teachers of those subjects.
Lord Bach: My Lords, for mathematics and science, where we introduced "golden hellos" from September
1414
1999, postgraduate recruitment in 1999–2000 rose by 19 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. Recruitment to modern language teacher training, for which "golden hellos" were not then available, fell by 11 per cent. However, the £70 million package of measures to boost recruitment to initial teacher training which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 30th March should help to bring about a step-change in recruitment to teacher training across the board.
As to part (b) of my noble friend's Question, I regret that information on the previous professions of trainees is not collected centrally. However, between 1994 and 1998, the latest years for which figures are available, the percentage of secondary trainees aged over 24 completing initial teacher training in those subjects, and who may therefore have held previous employment, rose from 53 per cent to 57 per cent.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend will know that I tabled this Question before the new incentives were announced last weekend. Indeed, my Question may have had something to do with that, although I doubt it. My noble friend has spelt out the new arrangements which include substantially increased incentives. Does that mean that the previous incentives which he mentioned did not attract the number of graduates to these subjects which the Government envisaged? Is he aware that these very welcome improvements will need to be continually assessed if we are to avoid a shortage in these very important subjects? Can he say whether the teacher unions have been consulted on these matters?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend's interest in this subject is well known to the House. Whether it was this Question or earlier ones which led the Government to take the view that they did on Thursday of last week, I cannot tell him, but congratulations are due to him in any event.
Of course there will be continual assessment of these matters and, as far as concerns the teacher unions, their initial reaction has been generally favourable. It would perhaps assist the House and my noble friend if I were to go into just a tiny bit more detail as to what the Secretary of State said.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am glad that I have support for that. Seventy million pounds for teacher training recruitment for next year was announced on 30th March; £6,000 for all postgraduate secondary trainee teachers; £6,000 for all postgraduate primary trainee teachers for 2000–01 only; and a further £4,000 "golden hello" for shortage subject teachers. That is a pretty good package and the House as a whole should receive it well.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that about 19,000 or 20,000 schools are primary schools and that, predominantly, the teachers who train for primary schools come through the Bachelor

1415
of Education degree, which is a four-year course? Does he further agree that it is very unfair to the teachers who have come through that system that they not only have to pay tuition fees for the fourth year but postgraduate students have those fees waived and postgraduate students also receive a £6,000 hand-out and a further £4,000 hand-out if they take a job at the end of that training? Is it right that some teachers should be treated in that way when the predominant number of teachers who teach in our primary schools are treated so unfairly?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we recognise the value of a diversity of routes into teaching, including undergraduate and postgraduate entry. But to ensure an adequate supply of the subject specialists, who are specially needed in the later stages of secondary education, teaching must be able to attract the best graduates. That is why the Government have adopted the policy that they have. We have to make the best and most efficient use of funds available. Shortages are greatest in secondary teacher training. Most secondary teachers qualify through the postgraduate route. However, in the present buoyant economic circumstances, competition to recruit the best new graduates is fierce.
It is on that basis that we think that the way in which we have treated this problem is fair. But I have to say that the noble Baroness certainly has a nerve. For years the status of teachers, whether primary or secondary, was downgraded, so that the noble calling of teaching became somehow a second-rate occupation not comparable to other more lucrative employment, whatever its value. We are determined to bring that state of affairs to an end. That is why we have done what we have. We have come a long way. It is not possible to put right in three years the damage that was clone over 18 years.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not an answer to the question that I asked.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, numbers are of course important but 30 also is quality. Is the Minister satisfied with the standard achieved by recruits to teaching as measured by, let us say, A-level scores or degree results; and are those standards rising?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we cannot be entirely satisfied, but standards are rising.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister say wnether, despite last year's "golden hellos", it is still the case that we are losing more specialist physics and chemistry teachers than we are gaining by recruitment? Is it still the case that a disproportionate number of those who are being recruited have third-class degrees in scientific subjects and mathematics?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are determined to raise standards, and I think that the noble Baroness ought to give what has been announced an opportunity to work to see what is the answer to her question.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, do these incentives and improvements mean that the Government will now be able to introduce more foreign language teaching at the primary stage? That is the best way to learn, as our foreign partners have found.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government certainly support primary teaching of modern languages. We very much hope that what we put into effect will assist that.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, last month the DTI published two reports on science teachers and technology matters. They were prepared by the Council for Science and Technology and are excellent reports. What are the Government going to do about putting their recommendations into effect, particularly in terms of continued professional development of both primary and secondary school teachers, so that they have the confidence to put forward their fast-moving subject well and with inspiration to boys and girls in our schools?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a very important question. I should like to write to the noble Baroness setting out in full what the Government propose to do about those reports.

Westminster Station: Subway Refurbishment
3.16 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsleyasked the Chairman of Committees:
What plans the Parliamentary Works Directorate has to improve the approaches to the entrance to the Palace of Westminster from Westminster Underground station.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, as part of the construction of the new Westminster station, London Underground is responsible for refurbishing the old public subway under Bridge Street to provide a dedicated and direct route between the Palace and the station. I understand that the subway will be reopened by the time the House returns from the Summer Recess.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that characteristically courteous reply. Is he aware that I am a member of the underground railway travelling classes, partly to give more people an opportunity to meet me and partly because I have a free pass? Is he further aware that I am depressed when I reach the tunnel leading from the Underground station to the Palace of Westminster: first, by the

1417
death-trap steps with which it is littered; secondly, by the builders' detritus that is there; and, thirdly, by the garbage, the cans, the papers and everything else that collects there? In view of the fact that Portcullis House is costing £250 million—goodness knows how much the refurbishment of the Underground station is costing—will the noble Lord use his undoubted charm and influence to see that the small amount of money that is needed is expended in order to supply a worthy entrance to what is sometimes misleadingly described as the Mother of Parliaments?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kindly words at the outset of his supplementary question. As a frequent user of Westminster Underground station, partly because I, too, am the holder of a free pass, I say with what I hope noble Lords will feel is uncharacteristic immodesty that I too was interested in what I had to say this afternoon.
On the substantive part of the noble Lord's attractive and entertaining supplementary, first, I hope that he and other noble Lords will be pleased to know that the major part of the refurbishment consists of a dedicated subway for parliamentary use in addition to a replacement of the public subway which we used to know. So far as cleanliness is concerned, that is the responsibility of Westminster City Council. I know that the council does its utmost to try to keep the subway clean. Other users of the station—unlike the noble Lord and, I hope, myself—do not assist the council in that task. The council is very conscious of the matter; I know that it will continue to do all that it can to improve the conditions while we await the new facilities.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend's Answer to this important question mean that one will be able to move happily from and to the Underground station on one level instead of having to go through a rather tiresome obstacle course, upstairs and downstairs, on more than one occasion?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, when the changes and improvements take place, the route to the top of the stairs, which I believe my noble friend has in mind, leading to our own card-operated turnstile, will no longer be involved. Therefore, we can look forward to some improvement.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Lord know when the lift in the station will start operating? It has been there ever since the station reopened, but it has never moved.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I try to help your Lordships as much as I can, but that matter does not fall within the responsibility of the Directorate of Parliamentary Works. It is within the responsibility of London Underground. I am sure that it will already be aware of the noble Baroness's point.
1418
In any case, so as to cover it, I will make sure that it does and perhaps an answer can be provided in that way.
Lord Addington: My Lords, bearing in mind that the noble Lord's responsibilities and powers in this area are somewhat limited, will he give an undertaking to use all his influence to make sure that Westminster is the most disabled user-friendly of all the stations on the system—accepting, of course, the fact that it does not make a great deal of difference if people can get on a train at Westminster but cannot get off anywhere else?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must give the preliminary answer that I gave a moment ago to the noble Baroness. However, I feel sure that the noble Lord's comment will be noted and taken into account.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while I agree that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, is there any chance that the Jubilee Line will be running properly by the Summer Recess?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I say this with some happiness, although not in the sense of being able to assist the noble Lord too much, that his question falls outside my terms of reference.

Council Tax Increases
3.23 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
By what percentage council tax rates have been increased above their forecasts (a) in England and (b) in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government did not predict council tax increases in 2000–01 for England; nor did we announce any capping criteria in advance. Councils made up their own minds on their budgets, taking account of local circumstances and the views of local people.
I understand that in Wales the National Assembly for Wales has its own arrangements, which are of course a matter for the Assembly itself.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not a fact that the level of council tax in England has risen by about twice the rate of inflation and in Wales by three times the rate of inflation? Is that not an inflationary pressure in itself, as well as a further burden on taxpayers who can ill afford to pay? Is not all this due to the parsimony of the Government as regards rate support grant?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, it is not due to the parsimony of this Government. This Government have given an additional £6 billion through the support system to local authorities. That is an increase of 7.8 per cent over the past three years, compared with a cut in the last three years of the previous administration of 4.3 per cent. So there was some ground to make up, and it has been made up by both central government grant and increases in council tax. The figures to which the noble Lord refers are not exactly correct. The average increase in England is about 6.2 per cent per dwelling, 6.1 per cent for Band D, and in Wales 11.3 per cent for Band D.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the increase in council tax for the London Borough of Camden is far less than the rate of inflation, having risen from £149 a month to £151 a month? I regret that I cannot give the exact percentage, but it is much less than 6.2 per cent.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I could give the noble Baroness the exact per centage increase if I could read the small print. I am aware of the general increase in the London Borough of Camden, which indicates a degree of good housekeeping in that Labour-controlled borough. Different local authorities face different circumstances and different demands on their resources. The local government finance system needs to reflect that, including the ability of local authorities to make their own judgments as to the level of council tax.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it has long been the case that at this time of year there is a ritual gavotte: local authorities plead their case one way and the Government consistently plead their case the other way. I should like to return to my noble friend's original Question. It seems that while it is true to say that the Welsh Assembly has an influence on, and indeed is responsible for, what happens in Wales, the interests of this House cover the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems proper to ask the Minister whether he can explain what appears to be an extraordinary d: screpancy between the general result in England and that in Wales.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this House, of course, has an interest in what happens throughout the United Kingdom and frequently throughout the rest of the world. However, I respond for the United Kingdom Government, not for the National Assembly for Wales. I feel that there is sometimes a conceptual difficulty among certain noble Lords—among whom I am slightly surprised to include the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—in regard to the consequences of devolution. It means that the Welsh Assembly and Welsh councils make their own decisions on devolved matters. It is not for the national Government to reply for them on those matters.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the greater the central control on funding at local level, the greater is the danger to local demoy? If so, does he further agree that the recent announcements of funding for schools going direct to schools from the centre, however welcome the cash, is another symptom of central government control, which does not properly allow for local judgment?
Lord Whitty; My Lords, I do not entirely agree with either proposition. Clearly, a balance needs to be struck between the amount of local government expenditure which is financed by central government and that which is raised locally. We believe that we are moving towards a sensible balance. We are reviewing the whole system of local government finance, and that is a fairly lengthy process. In the meantime, we allow local authorities a degree of stability by setting local government grants at a level for a period of three years. As to the additional money for education, which I am sure the noble Baroness and the whole House welcome, some will go direct and some will go via local authorities. The allocation will depend on the form of the education expenditure for which local authorities and schools can bid. This in no sense undermines the position of local education authorities; rather, it is a way of getting the money to the right place in the most effective way.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister said in his first reply that the Government had provided an additional £6 billion. Can the noble Lord tell the House to what it is additional?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the increase is 7.8 per cent. Those noble Lords who have quicker mathematical minds than mine will be able to work out the approximate level in the previous three years. In view of the noble Earl's ancestry, no doubt he has already worked it out. I do not share the noble Earl's ability.

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Members]
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) A person shall cease to be a member of a limited liability partnership on—

(a) death;

(b) commencement of winding up;

(c) becoming bankrupt or having his estate sequestrated: or

(d) granting a trust deed for the benefit of his creditors.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we apologise for moving amendments to deal with technical issues at this late stage, in particular because we warmly welcome the Bill in principle. I say that without fear of dissent because my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is not here. The reason why these amendments are tabled today is that it was only during

1421
the debate at Report stage that I became aware of a serious lacuna in the Bill which I had not previously noticed. The lacuna is that the Bill makes no provision for what happens to the property rights of a member of a limited liability partnership who ceases to be a member.
In most cases, what happens on the death or retirement of a member is covered by an agreement between the members. Obviously, that is so in the case of large professional partnerships, such as KPMG or Clifford Chance, but the Government see LLPs as a vehicle not only for professional partnerships but also small businesses. Not all small businesses will obtain proper advice before incorporation; and there will be some agreements to set up LLPs which fail to make proper rules to cover the rights of outgoing members. The Bill, or regulations made under it, needs to make proper default provision in those cases where the agreement fails to provide an answer; otherwise, the matter will have to go to court. The court will have the impossible task of deciding how to allocate LLP property without any guidance.
Take the simple situation in which three people form an LLP to run a restaurant and agree to split the profits equally. One of them dies and ceases to be a member, or becomes incapacitated and wants to retire, or simply gets fed up with the business and wants to get out of it. Meanwhile, the restaurant has been successful and is worth a considerable amount of money. Under the present law the restaurant business could be carried on by a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 or by a partnership. Each of them contains default provisions for what happens when somebody ceases to work for the company, but those provisions are very different. If a small business like this is carried on by a company the outgoing director is likely to have share capital. If there is a market for the shares the outgoing member can sell them; if not, he or she is locked in. If the company pays a dividend the former director, or his executors, will receive a dividend on those shares.
Normally, however, one cannot recover the capital unless and until the company is wound up, which is an indefinite time in the future. There is an exception. If the business is carried on in a way which is unfairly prejudicial to a member he can apply to the court for a remedy under Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985. The usual remedy is a court-ordered buy-out. But applications under Section 459 are notoriously long and expensive. If the business is run as a partnership the death or retirement of one partner dissolves the partnership, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, and the outgoing partner gets his or her share of the partnership property immediately. If the LLP adopted the partnership system it could not do so completely because the property of the LLP would belong to the LLP, not the individual members jointly.
I accept that it would not be right to wind up the LLP if one member left, but it would be possible to require the LLP to buy out the outgoing member's share of the capital. However, that has drawbacks.
1422
First, it might put the LLP into financial difficulties which could be serious or even fatal. Secondly, no doubt there would be difficulty in deciding on the valuation of the buy-out, especially if the business had valuable goodwill which might or might not be affected by the death or retirement of the outgoing partner.
But the use of the company precedent also has drawbacks. The lock-in of capital is unfair to the outgoing member and, over the long term, creates an acrimonious relationship between the outgoing member and the continuing members and also conflicts of interest. As LLPs have no share capital there is no possibility of a dividend. It appears that the continuing members would simply be entitled to split the profits between themselves. It might be possible to provide by regulation that Section 459 applies where the continuing members refused to pay for the use of the former member's capital. I understand that currently the DTI is consulting on the application of Section 459 to LLPs. I suppose that there is a third possibility; namely, that the only people interested in the net assets of LLPs are the current members and, therefore, in the absence of agreement on a buy-out, the outgoing member has no claim at all. I believe that that result would be wholly unacceptable.
It is essential that the Bill, or regulations made under it, should choose either the company or partnership model. As between them, I strongly prefer the latter. I do so, at least in part, because I believe that that is what people would expect. Let us return to the three person restaurant. Get the three of them together at the time they set up the business and ask what should happen if one of them dies, has a row with the other two and wants to leave or simply becomes unfit to carry on. Most people would say that in that case the outgoing member, or his executors, should get back his share of the LLP's assets. They might well go on to say that the continuing members of the LLP should have a reasonable time to arrange a buy-out. Frankly, I do not believe that many people engaged in setting up an LLP would deliberately opt for a long-term lock-in. The Government might, nevertheless, prefer the company model, but they would be wrong to do so. I believe that an even worse outcome would be to have no rule at all. How on earth could a court decide on the rights of a former member in the absence of some guidance provided by statute or regulations?
I do not claim that the amendments which I have tabled can simply be accepted as they stand. I have been persuaded in discussions with the Minister that the bankruptcy of a member should not lead to his automatically ceasing to be a member. We should like the Government to accept that there is a need to include a default provision to cover the property rights of a former member, to consider what those rights should be and to introduce the necessary amendments when the Bill goes to another place. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, so far I have not taken any part in this Bill and do not profess to understand it. I rise merely to question the English of the amendments in the names of three distinguished noble Lords. Amendment No. 1 provides that,
"A person shall cease to be a member of a limited liability partnership on—
(a) death".
If he has died, ipso facto how can he possibly be a member? I would have thought that that was common sense. If the individual has died the future tense—"shall cease to be a member"—is incorrect. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, realised that the amendments could not be accepted as they stood. I rather agree with him.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, throughout past debates I haw been impressed by the care and thoughtfulness of the amendments proposed. I have been privileged to play a small part. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's proposal.
There seem to be two different questions. First, what, if any, part should be played in the management of an LLP by the representative of a deceased, bankrupt or otherwise insolvent partner? That is dealt with adequately by Clause 7 which provides that there shall not be interference in the management of the business by such a representative. That deals with the management side.
Secondly—it is the question to which the noble Lord draws attention—what should happen to the share of such a person? Both as a matter of principle and of practice the proposed amendment is not right. As a matter of principle it does not seem obvious that those who have chosen a method of corporate entity through a limited liability partnership should necessarily receive back either in their interests or the interests of their creditors what they have put into it. Even in the example of the Three-person restaurant to which the noble Lord refers, it may be hard on the other two to provide by a default provision that the restaurant may have to come to an end because one of them has got fed up with the idea of being involved.
As a matter of practicality, the proposal creates enormous difficulties. The noble Lord was concerned that the court would have an impossible task (if I noted his words correctly) in deciding what should happen. I regret to say that from my perspective the court would have at least a very difficult task in following through the ideas proposed by the amendment. It proposes that the partnership member shall be entitled to receive from the partnership an amount equal to the value of his share of the capital. From my professional experience—I have dealt with a number of cases of valuation of shares in businesses—such valuations are particularly difficult to achieve. On what basis? On the net asset value basis? Is that a forced sale? Is it a going concern? Is it a share if it were sold on the open market? What account is to be taken of the fact that, as the amendment proposes, there is to be a reduction in the value resulting from someone ceasing to be a member? Who is to do the valuation: the court; a valuer? In my experience such matters are dealt with in
1424
a well-regulated organisation by a clear and detailed clause which often provides for an expert to deal with them.
I believe that the matter would have to be dealt with by agreement between the individuals at the time they set up the limited liability partnership. It would seem difficult to lay down any satisfactory default provision. I cannot support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has no need to apologise to the House for bringing forward these amendments at this stage. Clearly these are matters which he considers important which did not arise in our earlier considerations. It is entirely proper for him to bring them forward.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In this case I do not think that the word "shall" implies the future—or, in the circumstances of which he speaks, the after-life. This is an imperative "shall- rather than a future "shall".
I understand well the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for members to be able to leave a limited liability partnership receiving on departure a fair value for their interest in the firm. We would expect, as he expects, that in most cases the members of an LLP would include in their agreement the terms on which a member may depart. But his concern is that in firms where no agreement exists between members, a departing member may be forced to accept unfavourable terms if he wants to be bought out. I hope that I have that right.
The comparison has been made with the position of a partner in a partnership where, subject to agreement, the partner has the power to dissolve the firm and therefore achieve a fair result. We believe that to provide a member of a limited liability partnership with the right to dissolve the firm would be inappropriate. The LLP will be a separate legal entity which might itself have contractual obligations. There is the rub. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would like to see partnership law applied to what will be a corporate entity in circumstances where we think it would be inappropriate. Instead, as he has said on many occasions during the passage of the Bill, we have looked to the treatment of companies.
It is perhaps worth emphasising the point that the problem identified here is a general one which does not arise only for members of limited liability partnerships. The prospect of a buy-out provision has been considered for companies by the Law Commission and the Company Law Review. The Law Commission stopped short of suggesting a statutory entitlement to buy out in its report on shareholder remedies and instead proposed an article for Table A which would require the shareholders to make positive choices, in particular on valuation, in order to bring the article into effect.
The recently published consultation paper of the Company Law Review thought that even this was undesirable on the ground of the impossibility of

1425
prescribing a fair exit regime which would satisfy the full diversity of companies and on the basis that it would be a trap for ill-informed founders. Clearly, while the problems the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, described do exist in companies, the potential desirability of a statutory provision has not yet been considered to outweigh the considerable practical difficulties it might create. It would be unwise in the concept just of LLPs to try to decide this issue.
Perhaps I should touch on some of the difficulties as they would affect limited liability partnerships. The amendment to Clause 5 would have the effect of placing an obligation on the LLP to buy out the departing member's share. How would we take account of the fact that in some LLPs the members' interests may be structured so that members have different entitlements to profits and capital, or have entitlements which may be deferred? How should a member's share be valued? My noble friend Lord Goldsmith raised the point. Who should make the valuation? How does one deal with goodwill? A statutory provision will inevitably not provide an answer to these questions that is appropriate in the large variety of circumstances which may arise. There is a considerable danger that a statutory provision which provides the right to be bought out but which does not provide a clear mechanism for calculating the buy-out price will simply give rise to litigation.
We need also to recognise the interests of the firm. How would we prevent the risk that the value of an outgoing member's share was sufficient to put the LLP into financial difficulties? That is exactly applicable to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of three members of an LLP running a restaurant. This could have undesirable consequences for the employees of the LLP. Creditor protection is also an issue since there could be a conflict with the provisions designed to secure creditor protection, such as Section 214(4)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 which we intend to apply by regulation.
None of this is to say that we do not recognise the concerns expressed in the amendments; but it must be a question of balance. The aim of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is to deal with the situation where not only is there no agreement between members but members have been unable to reach reasonable agreement when presented with the difficulty of one of them wanting to depart. He is not concerned with the generality of LLPs but with a small, poorly-run LLP which finds itself in an intractable position of disagreement. Would it be right in those circumstances to overlook all the difficulties I have set out and impose an entitlement to buy out the departing member's interest?
Again, as my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, why should someone who has entered into business with others, setting up a registered legal entity with a recognised name and publicly notified membership, think that at will he can walk away with his investment intact? We must not forget that in establishing the LLP, the members created an entity which has a legal life independent of their own, not only in the interests
1426
of the departed and existing members which need to be considered, but also those of the LLP itself and, as I have said, its clients and employees.
More generally, minority protection is something we have been considering in the context of the consultation of the draft regulatory default provisions governing the relationship between members. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985. It may reassure him to some degree if I say that we are minded to apply by regulation this section which would have the effect that a member of an LLP would be able to apply to the court for an order on the ground that the affairs of the LLP were being, or had been, conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to the interests of its members generally or of some part of its members, including at least himself.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If that is to apply to members, how can it possibly assist former members?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that it can be applied with such variation as is appropriate to deal with the particular circumstances of an LLP. It does not have to be introduced without the necessary tweaking.
The consultation period does not close until tomorrow, so we cannot conclusively commit ourselves until all the responses have been considered. In particular, there is the question of whether Section 459 may be disapplied by unanimous agreement between the members of the LLP. But we have not yet seen anything which would lead us to believe that the application of Section 459 would be inappropriate.
It might save time if I observe that the noble Lord did not speak to his other amendments relating to bankrupts or to Clause 7. Perhaps I may conclude with those observations on the amendments to which he spoke.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I regret to say that I find the Minister's reply distinctly unsatisfactory. His speech was directed almost entirely to explaining why, in his view and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the partnership buy-out was inappropriate. My real point was the fact that there is no default provision on the partnership or company model. The Minister made no attempt to justify that.
I believe that we shall find ourselves in the situation in which the courts will have to construct for themselves, by implication of what the members would have decided to do had they thought about it at the time they formed the LLP, the results of the break-up on the retirement or death of a partner. I believe that for many years that will be a source for uncertainty and confusion and expensive litigation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment and in response to his question asking how Section 459 of the Companies Act could apply to a former

1427
member, I am advised that the member would remain a member until a satisfactory solution of the problem, and therefore none of the tweaking to which I referred would be required.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but I am still not sure how a member who has died can remain a member. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on that point.
As the Minister knows, we approve of a great majority of what the Bill does and we have no intention of seeking to delay its progress into law. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to think seriously about the points that have been raised before the Bill arrives in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Relationship of members etc.]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Ex-members]:
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Terrorism Bill
3.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before us today reforms and consolidates existing counter-terrorist legislation and puts it on a permanent basis I will come in a moment to deal with the provisions it the Bill itself in more detail. Before doing so, however, it might be helpful to the House if I explained why the Government judge that counterterrorist provisions, which are additional to the general criminal law, are needed at all.
Terrorism, as the definition on the face of the Bill sets out, involves the use or threat of serious violence for political, religious or ideological ends. While all crime can threaten social stability, terrorism, by its very nature, serves to undermine the foundations of democratic societies.
It poses particular difficulties for those of us who live in liberal democracies. On the one hand, our sense of outrage is all the greater because in such democracies the overwhelming majority of the population rightly believe that there are adequate nonviolent means for expressing opposition and dissent and for seeking change. On the other hand, we will have handed the terrorists the victory they seek if in combating their violence we descend to their level and put at risk the essential freedoms and rule of law which are the bedrock of our democracy. The challenge in framing counter-terrorist legislation is to ensure it provides an effective and proportionate response to terrorism and the threat of terrorism.
1428
In embarking on the task of framing legislation in this area, we are of course indebted to the thorough and insightful report, Legislation Against Terrorism, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and Mr Justice Kerr, which was presented to Parliament in October 1996. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in taking this opportunity formally to recognise the importance and usefulness of the inquiry headed up by the noble and learned Lord.
In that report four general principles were set out which the inquiry believed should govern any code of laws designed to counter terrorism. They were: first, legislation against terrorism should approximate as closely as possible to the ordinary criminal law and procedure; secondly, additional statutory offences and powers may be justified, but only if they are necessary to meet the anticipated threat, and they must then strike the right balance between the needs of security and the rights and liberties of the individual; thirdly, the need for additional safeguards should be considered alongside any additional powers; and, fourthly, the law should comply with the UK's obligations in international law.
In preparing this legislation, the Government have sought carefully to follow those four principles. We have paid particularly close attention to the need for balance and for safeguards. We have sought to ensure that the exceptional powers in the Bill are proportionate to the threat we face and are fully consistent with our human rights obligations. It is on that basis that I and the Home Secretary have made statements under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the effect that in our view the provisions of the Terrorism Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
Perhaps in providing context for our debate on the provisions in the Terrorism Bill, it might be helpful if I said a little about the threat the Government perceive for the present and the foreseeable future.
The counter-terrorist legislation currently in force in Great Britain goes back to 1974, to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill. It was introduced in another place in late November of that year, a week after terrible bombings in Birmingham in which 21 people were killed and 180 injured. On the Second Reading of that Bill, the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said:
"I do not think that anyone would wish these exceptional powers to remain in force a moment longer than is necessary". —[Official Report, 25/11/74; col. 642]
To underline that, the powers in the Bill were subject initially not to yearly, but to six-monthly review.
Despite the hope in 1974 that the need for counterterrorist legislation would be short-lived, those powers, with amendments and additions, remain in force a quarter of a century later. In the interim, more than 2,500 people have died in the United Kingdom as a result of Irish and international terrorism and thousands more have been injured. Unquestionably, the toll would have been greater without the antiterrorist powers and, above all, without the courage

1429
and commitment shown by members of the police and security forces. We recognise the debt of gratitude owed to them.
Despite recent setbacks in the political process, there is perhaps a better chance of a lasting peace in the island of Ireland now than at any time in recent years. But not everyone is signed up to peace. It is less than two years since the carnage at Omagh in August 1998 in which 29 people died and over 200 more were injured. In the past few weeks and months, we have seen a concerning up-turn in the number of so-called "punishment beatings", and there have been a number of "near misses" in which many more innocent lives could have been put at risk but for the intervention of the security forces. Even this morning, we have seen another attack on the security forces at Edrington Barracks in Londonderry where, mercifully, there was no loss of life.
In the same month as the terrible bomb in Omagh, there were particularly horrific examples of international terrorism when bombs exploded outside the Embassies of the United States in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, killing 257 mainly local people and injuring thousands. In December 1998, terrorists who called themselves the "Islamic Army of Aden" kidnapped a number of western tourists in the Yemen. During a rescue attempt by the Yemeni authorities, four tourists were killed: three of them British and one Australian. In February this year, the arrival of a hijacked Afghan aircraft at Stansted was a further reminder of the ways in which international terrorism can impact on this country.
The inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was one of the most thorough to have been conducted into the nature of the terrorist threat. Writing before the events in Omagh, Dar es Salaam or Nairobi, the noble and learned Lord concluded that, even when there was a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, the need for counter-terrorist legislation would remain. The Government have accepted that central recommendation of the inquiry by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the Bill is designed to bring it into effect. In doing so, it recognises the sad but inescapable fact that terrorism is here to stay for the foreseeable future and that, therefore, it is right to provide permanent powers to counter it.
I now turn to the Bill itself and, first, to Part I. As in existing legislation, the Bill does not create a separate offence of terrorism. For the most part, terrorists will, as now, be charged with offences under the ordinary criminal law. The Government believe that to be right in principle. First and foremost, terrorists are criminals. We would not wish to give credence to their spurious claim that their actions are somehow "different" or even "justifiable" because of the cause which they espouse. Therefore, the main purpose of counter-terrorist legislation is to give the police special powers to enable them to prevent and investigate this special category of crime.
Although I believe that there may be general agreement that that special category of crime exists, in another place there has been much discussion as to
1430
where the boundaries of that category lie; that is, what should be defined as terrorism. No doubt, later we shall have occasion to discuss that matter in more depth. However, for now, I shall set out the Government's approach in general terms.
Experience over the past 25 years in this country and abroad has shown that terrorist methods have been, and are being, adopted by people who pursue a growing range of political, or more broadly ideological or religious, ends. We believe that the assumption in the existing legislation that terrorism must be either Northern Ireland-related or, in certain circumstances, international, is no longer safe. Therefore, the Bill makes counter-terrorist powers available to fight all forms of terrorism, including so-called "domestic terrorism".
The definition of "terrorism" for the purposes of the Bill is found in Clause 1 as,
"the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause, of action which … involves serious violence against any person or property ….endangers the life of any person, or … creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public".
The clause goes on to make it clear that this definition includes such action outside as well as within the United Kingdom.
Our starting point for the definition was the existing PTA definition and the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. It is important to note that while we are broadening the scope of the legislation to cover any kind of terrorism, we are also raising the threshold for the use of the powers by adding the important qualification that the violence concerned must be serious.
Therefore, the Bill is not intended to threaten the right to demonstrate peacefully; nor will it do so. Nor is it designed to be used in situations where demonstrations unaccountably turn ugly. Should any unlawful activities occur in such circumstances, the powers available under the ordinary criminal law will, as now, suffice. Nor is the Bill designed to target or criminalise groups or individuals established to lobby in support of particular causes, be they animal rights, environmental issues, human rights or whatever. This Government would not seek to introduce a Bill which we believed would threaten the right of peaceful protest.
The Government have made it absolutely clear that the new definition will not catch the vast majority of protest groups which exist in this country today. Instead, the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill is designed to focus on quite the opposite end of the political spectrum. The powers and offences which the definition may trigger are there to deter, prevent and, where necessary, investigate a uniquely cowardly and barbaric class of crime. Terrorism is unique because it seeks to destroy not only lives but also the foundations of society itself. Rather than attempting to make its case by the myriad of lawful means available to it, terrorism chooses to try to get its way by force.

1431
In that sense, the Bill is about protecting, not threatening, fundamental rights. In the words of the Home Office's purpose, it is about establishing and safeguarding a,
"safe, just and tolerant society".
Part I of the Bill also includes the provision to continue certain powers in Northern Ireland for a transitional period. I shall say more on that, and on the Northern Ireland provisions in general, when I say a few words about Part VII of the Bill.
Until now, the power to proscribe terrorist organisations has been available only for Northern Ireland-related terrorist groups. Under the Bill, for the first time it will be possible to proscribe groups involved in international and other forms of domestic terrorism as well if in all the circumstances it is right to do so. We believe that in policy terms it is right so to extend the ambit of the power. The offences which currently apply to, and have proved useful in tackling, proscribed "Irish" groups are also carried over into the new Bill and will apply in respect of all groups proscribed under the new legislation. No new offences are created.
The groups listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill are the Irish groups that are already proscribed under existing legislation. We are considering which other groups it might be appropriate to add, taking into account factors such as the nature and scale of the group's activities, the specific threat that they pose to the UK and British nationals abroad, the extent of their presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Proscription is a very heavy power and we shall use it only when it is absolutely necessary. Organisations and individuals aggrieved by proscription decisions will have a new right of appeal to the independent proscribed organisations appeal commission.
I do not intend to be drawn today into detailed debate on which additional groups might be proscribed once the Bill is in force. However, it may be useful to place on record that, on present information, we would not envisage the immediate proscription of any so-called "domestic" groups. The inclusion of the power is intended to send a clear message, particularly to any international terrorist organisation or its supporters that may be contemplating activity here in the United Kingdom, that they are not welcome and that we intend to frustrate their intentions.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill, which deals with terrorist property. It removes certain loopholes in the current law and broadens the existing fund-raising offences to cover the resourcing of terrorism anywhere in the world. This part of the Bill also contains a new power to seize terrorist cash at borders—a power which already exists in relation to drug trafficking.
Parts IV and V of the Bill contain a range of investigative tools and other counter-terrorist powers which to a large extent replicate, or build upon, powers in the current counter-terrorist legislation. Part V includes the retention of the special terrorist power of
1432
arrest where a constable has reasonable suspicion that a person has been or is concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The Government are of course aware that in retaining such an arrest power, without the creation of a linked offence, they are diverging from the approach recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. They have considered very carefully indeed the points he made in his report but have concluded that it is right, and consistent with our international human rights obligations, to include a special terrorist arrest power in the new legislation.
Part V of the Bill, and the related schedule, also establishes a new system for judicial extensions of detention. When the 1989 Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced, the UK had just lost the case of Brogan in the European Court of Human Rights. This focused on extensions of detention on the authority of the executive. The then government responded by entering derogations under the ECHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as they were entitled to do in the face of the threat from Irish terrorism.
In order to withdraw those derogations the Bill provides a system for extensions of detention under independent judicial authority. The Government intend to lift their derogations once those provisions are in force.
Part VI of the Bill contains a number of further terrorist offences, including the proposals on incitement of overseas terrorism and provisions enabling the UK to ratify United Nations conventions on the suppression of terrorist bombings and on terrorist finance.
Those proposals are important in demonstrating our commitment to change the climate in which the supporters of terrorism operate in this country. The UK has no intention of becoming a safe haven for terrorists. Our aim is to deter those who seek to use the UK as a base from which to promote terrorist acts abroad. That is not a new principle. The incitement provisions of the Bill do no more than till gaps in the existing law.
Part VII contains temporary measures for Northern Ireland only. We are committed, under the Good Friday agreement, to removing the emergency powers in Northern Ireland as soon as it is safe to do so. The Bill will enable us to do that.
The current Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act— the EPA—will expire on 24th August. Part VII replaces those provisions of the EPA which the Government believe are still necessary. These include the provisions governing the non jury or "Diplock" system in Northern Ireland together with some additional powers for the police and Armed Forces.
Because they are special powers, going beyond the permanent regime we are providing for the whole of the UK, the powers in Part VII are time-limited to five years and need to be renewed each year by affirmative

1433
order. Individual powers can also be withdrawn by order at any time and it is our intention to do this as soon as the security situation permits.
We plan to implement Part VII to the same time-scale as the rest of the Bill; that is, early in 2001. However, as the EPA will expire before then, Clause 2 and Schedule 1 together provide what we call the "transitional EPA". That will come into effect as soon as the Bill has Royal Assent and will continue until it is replaced by Part VII.
It may be helpful if I mention two further, more general, matters, one of which is dealt with in Part VIII of the Bill. First, the Bill, by its silence, ensures the disappearance of the Secretary of State's power under the 1989 PTA to make exclusion orders. The Government repeat now that in their view this is a fundamentally objectionable power, allowing restrictions to be placed on the movements of citizens akin to a form of Internal exile. We lapsed that power in 1998 and it has no place in the Bill.
Secondly, your Lordship's House may wish to note a significant addition to Part VIII of the Bill made after debate in another place. Clause 125 of the Bill requires an annual report on the operation of the legislation to be laid before Parliament. The Government believe that the time has come for counter-terrorist powers to be made permanent, but they fully recognise the interest and concern in both Houses, and in the country more generally, in ensuring that these powers continue to be used fairly, proportionately and effectively. An annual independent report will allow those issues to be addressed.
The Government believe that the wide-ranging and evolving threat from terrorism will not go away. The Bill therefore sets in place an appropriate and effective range of provisions, which is proportionate to the reality of the threat we face, which will be of practical operational benefit, which will send a clear message to terrorists and their supporters and which is consistent with the rule of law and our democratic traditions and civil liberties. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, Second Readings deal with the principles of a Bill and we support the principles of this Bill. I welcome the fact that the Labour Party has now reverted—I think I am entitled to say—to the realism of the previous Labour government. I observe that the Conservative government did not always have such support in the interim.
It is in the national interest that a Labour Government should have picked up the baton from the Conservatives and consolidated legislation—not in the legal sense, but in the non-technical sense. I shall have some criticisms and comments to make, so, first, I want to record our support and stress the importance of agreement between the main parties on the principles. We should be, and are, united in fighting terrorism. I am very serious in my tribute to the present
1434
government as I do not believe that the Bill was by any means a foregone conclusion at every stage of Labour's period in opposition. An awful warning stems from French policy in 1981 when the incoming Mitterrand socialist government initially relaxed French anti-terrorist laws and there was a serious increase in violence.
In due course, history will judge that this Labour Government's Northern Ireland policy under the previous Secretary of State was, in some respects, dangerously conciliatory. I refer of course to prisoner releases and other measures. However, in this antiterrorist legislation, the Government have wisely carried forward their predecessor's policy in most respects, and I welcome that.
It seems to me that the Bill is based on four propositions with which we agree, and, indeed, which we advanced in government: that terrorist legislation now needs to be permanent; that it needs to cover all elements of terrorism—cash and computers as well as bombs and guns; that it should be the same as far as possible in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland; and that it should also cover those in the United Kingdom who plan terrorism elsewhere in the world.
The first proposition underlying the Bill—that international terrorism has become a permanent feature of life which demands permanent legislation to defend our society and constitution by providing for special police powers and offences—is, I believe, correct. I do not think that I need to argue the proposition in detail as I expect your Lordships will agree with it. Sufficient terrorist outrages, as referred to by the Minister, both in this country and overseas, remain in all our minds. If anyone does not agree, then the issue is most thoroughly dealt with in the excellent report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to whom I pay tribute, as did the Minister, and to whose speech I particularly look forward.
Besides, we have on the statute book at present permanent legislation in all but name. I refer of course to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the other statutes.
The PTA was originally passed through Parliament very quickly during my first months as a Member of another place in 1974. It remains in substantially the same form, although alterations have been made over the years, a quarter of a century later. Even in your Lordships' long-sighted House, 25 years counts as something near permanent these days.
However, because of their legally temporary nature, both the PTA and the EPA are renewed annually. That means, among other things, that we have annual debates in which we can review the threats and our responses, legislative and otherwise. We have had also valuable reviews of the working of the special legislation, latterly from Mr John Rowe QC and at an earlier stage from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Those annual events are a useful feature of the existing legislation, and we wish to consider the provisions the Government are making in Committee. As the Minister said, they provide for an annual report to Parliament but not specifically for a debate each year.

1435
The second proposition, I suggest, is that we should cover not only matters to do with bombs, guns and violence of that nature, but also cash and electronic terrorism whica these days can pose devastating threats to society. I have been concerned, first, during my time as Northern Ireland security Minister, and since, to emphasise the importance of terrorist finance in the whole equation. Cash is an essential ingredient of modern terrorism. Today's terrorist advances with an Armalite in one hand and a cashbox in the other. Of course, he has also a shrewd eye on the ballot box, but cash is essential. At a basic level it is necessary to finance operations, but it is more than that. It can become part of the momentum of terrorism itself.
The Mafia, after all, started as a Sicilian independence movement. Of course, it has long since changed into primarily a financial racket. Northern Ireland terrorism has gone some way down the same route—not nearly so far, of course, but some way. The extortion and the rackets are well known to anyone who knows the Province. A substantial proportion of the horrible punishment beatings that take place are about keeping control of particular areas of the Province and of the rackets within them. Too many people's lifestyles depend on terror and extortion for the comfort of democracy.
Computers and the Internet are also potential targets. Damaging them can bring ferocious consequences. The Stock Exchange computer failure yesterday has forcefully demonstrated the vulnerability of great institutions. It appears to have been an accident, but let us consider how dearly some groups would have loved to claim responsibility for it. What a triumph it would have been for the "Stop the City" demonstrators at the time of the world trade talks not so long ago. I am sure that great effort is going into trying to engineer such failures. Some of it will be by terrorists with targets far more dangerous than the Stock Exchange in mind. I am reliably informed that some states, as well as some terrorists, are actively pursuing the possibilities of attacking their enemies through such means. Therefore, it is important to be sure that the Bill adequately covers that threat.
The third proposition is that our anti-terrorist legislation should, as far as possible, be the same in all parts of the United Kingdom. Sadly, that aim can so far be achieved only in part, as the Bill shows in Part VII and elsewhere. Again, the reasons are clear. The Good Friday agreement remains the centre of all our hopes. But it is net yet fully implemented. There is a so-called official ceasefire, but we seem to be as far away as ever from taking a single gun out of Northern Ireland's politics. The terms of references of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and hence his report, are based on the idea that Northern Ireland terrorism is over and on what we should do when it is over. It is clearly too early to base this legislation entirely on that proposition.
We support the inclusion of Part VII, the continuation of the Diplock courts, and so on. In any case, quite apart from the main terrorism, as it were, there remains the problem of those who do not support
1436
the Good Friday agreement or anything like it. Irish history tells us with depressing frequency that even when the present crop of terrorist leaders realise that it is best to settle, others more militant will take their place. We therefore need to keep up the guard of our society and the guard of our constitution in the face of those threats. The Omagh bomb, to which the Minister referred, caused the biggest loss of life of any atrocity in Northern Ireland during these 30 years of troubles. It was said to be the work of just such a dissident group. I presume that we shall be told that last night's bomb at Edrington Barracks in Londonderry is attributable to such a group.
That brings me to one of the omissions from the Bill: executive detention or internment. Clearly, it is a weapon of last resort in any democratic country such as ours, but it is potentially a crucial one. If, for example, a settlement is agreed in Northern Ireland but resisted by small dissident groups, it could be right to intern some members of those groups. That procedure could succeed only if it were carried out both north and south of the border. The Republic of Ireland legislation crucially and wisely retains that power. Of course, internment also requires good intelligence—which was lacking in 1971—and surprise. It is the surprise factor which makes it important to keep the power on the statute book. Internment after new primary legislation, however quickly processed in this building, would fail. In any case, the very existence of the power and occasional speculation that it might be invoked is potentially highly disruptive to terrorist organisations. It will cause people to have to keep on the move and make both communications and normal life more difficult for terrorist leaders.
The fourth proposition underlying the Bill is that terrorism is international and that this country should not provide a base for terrorism to be used against other countries. We know that terrorist groups across the world are in touch with one another. The IRA is a well known example. At the same time, of course, we sometimes approve and back freedom struggles against oppressive totalitarian regimes elsewhere. That is only one of the factors that make the definition of "terrorism" in Clause 1 so crucial. The definition provides the trigger which activates all the special powers and provisions in the Bill. But it is difficult to conceive of a definition which would permit support for freedom fighters while applying draconian provisions to terrorists. Under the Bill, I understand, it is to be left to the judgment and the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am not sure—to put it no stronger—that that is very satisfactory, particularly at the margins.
In any case, the definition chosen by the Government is not exactly the one recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. We shall want to explore the reasons for that and the precise intended effects of the words actually chosen and, for that matter, the reasons for omitting some other words. Will the definition, for example, including, as it does, the word "serious", covering violence against persons and property, catch punishment beatings,

1437
described on one occasion as "internal housekeeping", in respect of terrorist groups? Clearly, this legislation should consider that type of violence.
Will the words "serious violence against property" be sufficient to cover computer crime? As I indicated, it is important that the legislation covers that. More fundamentally, in considering the definition we want to reflect on what makes terrorist crimes special, so justifying special measures.
In paragraph 5.11 of his report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, identifies the special characteristics of terrorism. Among other things, he says that terrorism is designed to create fear among the public and that its purpose is to subvert the democratic process and to secure political or ideological objectives by violence or the threat of it. He also points out that it is frequently perpetrated by well-trained, well-equipped and highly committed individuals. Those considerations lead him to recommend a definition based on that used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States, which states:
"The use of serious violence against persons or property or the threat to use such violence to intimidate or coerce a government the public or any section of the public in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives".
In comparing that definition with the Bill, noble Lords will see that the concept of fear—intimidation or coercion; in other words, terror, which is at the heart of terrorism—is not specified in the Bill. We shall return to that thought in Committee, although I realise that there are difficult legal complications.
Deciding what we mean by "terrorism" is crucial. The Bill must cover everything that we mean by terrorism, but not too much. We do not want draconian legislation to be applied to non-terrorist situations; nor do we want to criminalise, by accident of definition, people who are not terrorists. Editors, journalists, accountants and banks have expressed worries on that score. We also have to consider innocent bystanders caught up in terrorist situations or those wrongly suspected.
That brings me to the matter of human rights. The whole Bill is about human rights, by which I do not mean only the rights enshrined in the specific legal formulations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also the rights of our people and our democracy to be protected from the violence of terrorists. The greatest violations of the rights of ordinary people come from terrorists who not only kill and maim those unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time but who affect all of us. An essential part of terrorist methods is to instil fear into ordinary people so as to influence political events.
In considering the niceties of the ECHR we need to consider both the right of innocent people not to be subjected to draconian security measures and the right of all our people not to be killed by terrorists or coerced by fear. I have no doubt that we shall return frequently to matters of ECHR rights, but we must always see them in context.
1438
Schedule 3 makes provisions about the proscribed organisations appeal commission which raise issues of legal representation. I am told that we shall need to discuss the powers to stop and search without "reasonable suspicion" and the onus of proof. The Minister mentioned one matter in which the ECHR is involved: the question of who should be responsible for permitting detention of suspects over 48 hours. The Government propose that it should be "judicial authority" rather than the relevant Secretary of State. They claim that that is necessary to bring the law into line with the ECHR. But, as the Minister acknowledged, we have a derogation from the ECHR, subsequently specifically upheld by the Strasbourg Court, so there is no legal or other need to end that derogation. It is a choice. The argument for retaining the power with the Secretary of State remains strong. In Northern Ireland the judiciary has always opposed the transfer of the power to itself for very good reasons.
On this matter, there is, to say the least, some doubt about whether there is an understanding in continental jurisdictions of UK habits. My right honourable friend Tom King pointed out in another place that when he went to Strasbourg over this issue of the Brogan case, French investigators detained people in the Eksund arms running incident in which Northern Ireland terrorists were taking arms and in the process fell into French jurisdiction. The French investigators detained people for two years on the say so of the person directly supervising the investigation because he was called an examining magistrate. I do not know enough about the Scottish legal system to be clear about how close that official's duty is to the procurator fiscal, as in England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is no equivalent. We shall need to return to that matter as well.
However, Scotland is relevant in another, wider context. The Bill relates to matters which are reserved to Westminster—terrorism and money laundering—but it also creates new offences that extend the criminal law of Scotland. Therefore, it impinges on wider aspects of criminal justice which is a devolved competence. This Parliament can legislate on matters that are devolved, but the Scottish Parliament and Ministers should be consulted. Can the Minister tell the House whether that has been done and what was the result? We are also interested to know whether there is to be consultation with the Advocate General for Scotland before regulations are proposed to this House and another place.
I do not pretend to have set out an exhaustive list of matters that will attract our attention in Committee and the later stages of the Bill, but I hope it is helpful to have indicated the main areas of concern to us. Overall, we support the principles of the Bill, although there are issues within it that require careful consideration. Great thought has been put into the preliminaries to this legislation, but it is now the responsibility of this House to decide what should rightly become permanent law on the subject of the

1439
protection of all our people and the protection of our constitution from evil men and women who seek to terrorise us.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is an important Bill that deals with in important issue. It stems from the inquiry conduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, set up by the previous government in December 1995. I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord will speak next. I played a minor part in his inquiry: in June 1996 I took part in an interesting seminar that he organised at Wiston House.
I must declare that I am one of the vice-chairmen of Justice, an organisation that has submitted a valuable briefing for this debate, and I am a trustee of the Airey Neave Trust that has financed research into terrorism.
I start by making two fundamental points. First, I believe that we need permanent legislation on terrorism, even if peace returns fully and permanently to Northern Ireland. Relatively minor acts of violence, such as those carried out so far by animal rights groups, could escalate into something worse. At any time, as in the past, there could be terrorist attacks on foreign targets in the United Kingdom, such as the attacks on the American, Russian or Israeli embassies. A wholly unforeseen and unpredicted terrorist threat could arise. If we do not have standing legislation, we may have to introduce new legislation rapidly and without adequate debate. I believe that the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was rushed through Parliament in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, is an example of how not to do it.
Secondly, I believe that the Bill should extend to acts within the United Kingdom in furtherance of terrorism overseas. Nowadays, terrorism takes little notice of state boundaries and it would be wrong for the United Kingdom to be a haven for those planning or executing terrorism elsewhere, although I recognise the evidential problems that can arise in such cases. Recently that led to the dropping of a case against three Algerians.
One problem that must be solved is: who is a terrorist? There is a saying which goes, "I am a freedom fighter; you are a paramilitary; they are terrorists". How can one distinguish between the ANC fighting an oppressive racist government and an organisation such as ETA in Spain, fighting a genuinely democratic government? Where in the scale between the ANC and ETA does one rank, for example, the PKK or the Tamil Tigers? I do not think that the problem can be solved by a clever definition of terrorism. Some acts committed by the ANC during its armed struggle against apartheid come within any reasonable definition of "terrorism". I believe that we would not have wished to prosecute the ANC exiles in this country if they organised such acts.
The only realistic safeguard is the need to obtain leave to start the prosecution. Under Clause 117 of the Bill, the consent needed is the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Like the noble Lord, Lord
1440
Cope of Berkeley, I am a little concerned about that. In general, it may be thought a good idea to depoliticise decisions by giving them to the DPP rather than to the Attorney-General. But in cases of prosecutions for offences connected with overseas terrorism, which raise difficult and sensitive political issues, I believe that such decisions should be taken by someone directly answerable to Parliament. For that reason, I suggest that that person should be the Attorney-General.
Perhaps I may return to the question of a definition of "terrorism", which has caused very considerable concern. There are difficulties with any definition. So far, those difficulties have defeated a great deal of effort by a great many people to come up with a widely acceptable definition. I accept that violence to property can be terrorism even if it does not directly involve violence against people. However, I do not think that members of Greenpeace donning fancy dress and pulling up GM crops are at risk because I cannot see that that is serious violence. But the acts of animal rights activists, if they were to destroy research laboratories, could be regarded by some as terrorism.
Furthermore, the knocking out of the national grid—something the IRA once tried to do—certainly should be seen as a violent act, not only because a small number of people might die, but because of the enormous damage that such an act would cause to the economy of the country. It is also possible that cyber-terrorism could have a devastating effect without anything happening that could be defined as "violence" in the ordinary sense of the word. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this must be covered by anti-terrorist legislation.
What is lacking in the definition set out in Clause I is any reference to the element of coercion. I am inclined to prefer, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the working definition adopted by the FBI. However, in my view, the final words of that definition, which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, read out to the House; namely,
"in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives".
may not be absolutely necessary. Indeed, terrorist violence can be used, as it has been by Colombian drug barons and the Mafia, for purposes that are not political or ideological, but criminal. Furthermore, in any definition the word "violence" needs to be defined in a way that covers the sabotage of electronic systems. Subject to that, I believe that the element of violence, like the element of coercion, forms an essential part of the definition.
Other serious problems need to be tackled here, most of them involving aspects of human rights. The procedure set out in Part II for proscribing and deproscribing organisations needs to be looked at very carefully. Proscription makes membership of an organisation a criminal offence and enables that organisation's money to be seized and forfeited. The procedure followed for proscribing is that the Secretary of State makes a proscription order which has to be approved as a statutory instrument. Then an

1441
appeal takes place to decide whether he has acted reasonably. In other words, what is set out here is conviction first and trial afterwards. That is a procedure that belongs to the world of Alice Through the Looking Glass.
I believe that proscription cannot be imposed in that way without infringing rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, especially the right to association set out in Article 11 and the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol 1. Immediate proscription would be legitimate only in the case of a crisis which would,
"threaten the life of the nation",
to use the words of the European convention—and would justify a derogation under the Human Rights Act and the convention. However, except in times of crisis, I believe that proscription should not take effect pending the hearing and determination of an appeal, although interim steps such as freezing bank accounts pending a hearing are doubtless possible and legitimate.
I turn now to Clause 12, which criminalises support for terrorist organisations. It is drafted much too widely. Clause 12(3) provides:
"A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and— …
(b) he knows that the meeting is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation".
Meetings can comprise no more than three people and can be held in private. The result of that is that Clause 12(3) could catch someone who attends a meeting to try to persuade an organisation to abandon terrorism. Technically, it could even catch a meeting between members of a proscribed organisation and members of Her Majesty's Government who have met to try to negotiate terms of peace.
By extending far beyond anything that is reasonable, Clause 12 breaches the right to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European convention. Restrictions placed on freedom of speech are not compatible with the European convention unless they pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society. I agree that it is both legitimate and necessary to restrain public advocacy of a terrorist cause. For that reason, I do not call for the total rejection of Clause 12. However, as it stands, this clause goes beyond what is necessary in a democratic society and is not a proportionate response to the need to restrict the advocacy of terrorism. It is not sufficient to rely on the need to obtain the consent of the DPP to bring about a prosecution.
Serious problems could also arise with the provisions set out in Clause 57 concerning the possession of articles "for terrorist purposes". This clause makes it an offence for a person to possess an article,
"in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with … terrorism".
"Possession" can be assumed if an article was present on any premises,
"at the same time as the accused".
1442
It is a defence for the accused to prove that such possession was not for purposes connected with terrorism. However, that means that, in a situation where there is a reasonable suspicion that possession was for terrorist purposes but a credible alternative explanation is put forward, but nevertheless that alternative explanation falls short of proof, the accused will be convicted. Plainly this falls short of the standard of proof normally required for a criminal conviction under United Kingdom law and required by Article 6(2) of the ECHR. Similar problems arise with Clause 58 as regards the collection of information.
Finally, Clauses 107 to 110, which relate to Northern Ireland, re-enact Sections 1, 2 and 4 of the 1998 Act. Clause 108 allows a police officer's opinion that the accused belongs to a terrorist organisation to be admissible as evidence of that fact. That clause was subject to a devastating analysis by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in the debate held on the 1998 Act. I hope that, either today or in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord will put forward that analysis again. I do not, therefore, intend to repeat his arguments today. However, this clause is useless and should be scrapped.
I should add that although I agree in a number of respects with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, I strongly disagree with him on the subject of internment. I feel that that is an inappropriate method of combating terrorism. It was certainly disastrous when it was introduced in the early 1970s and I believe has rightly been abandoned.
Terrorism is a serious problem and will remain so come what may in Northern Ireland. The Government have been right to put anti-terrorism legislation on a permanent basis. The Government are again right to stop the United Kingdom being used as a base for terrorism overseas. But it is necessary to ensure that the legitimate aim of curbing terrorism does not restrict rights—for example, the right to personal liberty; the right to fair trial; the right to freedom of speech; and the right to freedom of assembly—to an extent greater than is truly necessary. In some respects, the Bill does so restrict those rights. This Bill can and must be improved during its passage through your Lordships' House.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind comments made about my report by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cope. It is now nearly four years since I completed that report. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will remember, it had to be based on the assumption of lasting peace in Northern Ireland. As time passed I began to think that maybe the report had found its place on that ever-lengthening shelf in the Home Office which becomes the final resting place of reports which have passed their sell-by date. But it has been taken down, dusted off, and now we have this impressive Bill. And when I say that, I mean that the

1443
Bill is "impressive". I congratulate the Minister and those behind hin—if that is in order—on producing the Bill today.
However, that does not mean that it contains all that I hoped for. I shall return to that later. For the moment I am content to say that it contains many good points; the best of all perhaps being Clause 2 itself which repeals two bits of existing legislation which had become a blot on the statute book. They were both temporary provisions which have lasted for over 25 years. I am glad that the repeal of that legislation has been given prominence in Clause 2 of the Bill—that is, right at the start of the Bill—and was not tucked away in some schedule.
I agree with everything that has been said; that it was right that those two provisions should now be replaced by permanent legislation covering all forms of terrorism—international, domestic and terrorism in Northern Ireland—without geographical distinction, save to the extent that it is still unfortunately necessary under Part VII of the Bill. Whether or not there should be permanent anti-terrorist legislation was one of the specific questions on which I was asked to advise, and I am glad that that advice was accepted. But it is right to say that some were and still are of the view that permanent anti-terrorist legislation is not required and that the ordinary law should suffice. I was never of that view. Terrorism is so dangerous and held in such abhorrence that it requires special powers to meet the threat.
I am glad, too, to see that prominence has been given to proscription in Part II of the Bill. Again, some feel that proscription serves no useful purpose and is merely symbolic. I do not agree with that view. On the contrary, it has value in itself and is also the key to so much else that is in the Bill. In other countries, notably the United States and Germany, proscription—whether under that name or other names—is the cornerstone of their legislation and it is right that it should be so with us. For some reason, at the time of the consultation the Government were in two minds as to whether or not to extend proscription to international, non-Irish terrorism. I am glad that in the end they came to what I regard as the right decision.
I note that at the moment Schedule 2 contains only Northern Ireland terrorist organisations among those that are proscribed. I hope that it will include other notorious international terrorist groups when the Act is passed. I understand from what the Minister said that that is the Government's intention. So I welcome Part II of the Bill.
I also greatly welcome the fundraising provisions in Part III, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. That is an important part of the anti-terrorist campaign. As f understand it, fundraising for organisations which have been proscribed will be caught by the extended definition in Clause 1(3). It is done in a rather roundabout and slightly clumsy way, but I hope the Minister will confirm that that is the intention; that one will be able to get fundraising for proscribed organisations through that extended definition.
1444
I welcome the decision to take away the power to extend detention from the Secretary of State and to put it into the hands of judges under Schedule 8, Part III. The previous Administration were always reluctant to take that course. I could never understand why. Now it has become necessary in any event, whether or not we feel it desirable, if we are going to withdraw our derogation under Article 15 of the convention. Perhaps that also may be confirmed when the Minister replies.
Turning to Clause 1, much time was spent in the other place on the definition of terrorism. Everyone agrees that the existing definition is too wide in theory, though it works perfectly well in practice, because it would extend to even quite trivial violence. It was for that reason that I suggested the insertion of the word "serious" before the word "violence" and that suggestion has been accepted.
There was then much discussion in the other place as to what is meant by "serious" and whether the word itself should be defined. I believe that that would be a waste of effort. As any lawyers present in the Chamber today will know, for over a hundred years now we have had an offence of causing grievous bodily harm as distinct from an offence of causing actual bodily harm. Generations of judges have directed juries that grievous bodily harm means serious, or really serious, bodily harm. Juries have never had any difficulty in drawing a line between what is serious bodily harm and what is actual bodily harm, falling short of serious bodily harm. I have no doubt that juries would have no difficulty in knowing what is "serious violence" as set out in Clause 1.
We must obviously do our best with the definition. However, having spent many hours looking at many different definitions, I can only agree with what was said by both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope; namely, that there are great difficulties in finding a satisfactory definition. Indeed, I was unable to do so and I suspect that none of us will succeed. As I say, we must do our best but I hope that we will not spend too much time on the definition. It seems to me that there are other defects in the Bill and it is to these that I now turn.
The first defect is a perfectly general matter. On this occasion, I regret to say that I believe the Government have missed an opportunity. They have succeeded in cobbling together two Acts and have done that job very skilfully. But the Acts themselves, which have been put together or consolidated—indeed, it is a form of consolidation—are an extraordinary rag-bag of miscellaneous offences of varying seriousness. There are also all sorts of other provisions that have been added from time to time as occasion has demanded, usually under the pressure of events—such as the legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred which we were asked to pass two years ago after the Omagh bombing and which is now reproduced, as he pointed out, in Clause 108 of the Bill, but which has never once been used since it was passed, as most of us foresaw.

1445
What was needed was not a cobbling together of these two Acts but a fresh look. If one had taken a fresh look, as I tried to do, I think that one would have expected to find in the Bill a comprehensive code covering all serious terrorist offences. But what does one find? Let us take, for example, a politically-motivated terrorist group that succeeds in blowing up—this is a dramatic example—half of Whitehall with great loss of life. If the perpetrators were caught, as one hopes they would be, one would surely expect them to be tried under our new terrorist Act. One would then expect them to receive a mandatory life sentence and a minimum sentence, possibly a mandatory minimum sentence, of 35 years' imprisonment.
However, if one looks through the Bill to find that provision, one would be disappointed. One would find many little offences; for example, "weapons training", wearing a uniform, and so on. But the Bill has nothing to say about that sort of atrocity and the way that it should be dealt with in the way I described. Those people would, of course, be charged with murder. If no one happened to be killed, they would be charged with an offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. But, to my mind, a terrorist atrocity of that kind is actually something worse than murder—an atrocity in which innocent people are killed quite indiscriminately. As I believe the Minister said, it is in the nature of an act of warfare on society.
Heaven knows, the ordinary offence of murder is a, serious enough offence in itself; but, in all humility, I suggest that we are concerned here with something that is even more serious. That is my first criticism of the Bill. It seems to me that it should have brought together all offences under which terrorists are actually charged, including murder and offences under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. It could so easily have been done in the way that I tried to suggest and for the reasons that I gave at page 27 of my report; and, indeed, in Appendix E. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will say why that particular recommendation has not been accepted.
I turn to the second defect, which is the last. Many years ago, Lord Gardiner, as a Labour Lord Chancellor, recommended the creation of a new offence of preparing to commit an act of terrorism. The great advantage of that is obvious: it enables one to catch the terrorists before the atrocity rather than after. Following Lord Gardiner's recommendation, I suggested a new offence in the terms of Clause 40(1)(b), which refers to a person who,
"has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
That language comes from the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But, again, the Government have not accepted that recommendation. In the consultation paper, all the Government said was that they did not regard it as the way forward. Therefore, when the Minister replies, I hope that he will also explain why not. It is all the more curious because possessing an article in preparation for an act of terrorism is an offence under Clause 57(1). Why, I ask, should it be
1446
necessary to prove possession of an article if there is other cogent evidence that a person is preparing to commit an act of terrorism? It simply does not make sense. Here we have a simple offence that would catch individuals, as well as groups or organisations. It was recommended long ago by Lord Gardiner and was included in my report. However, all that is said is that it is "not the way forward".
There is one last, compelling reason for creating an offence in the terms of Clause 40(1)(b). If it is not an offence, as it clearly is not at present—it might be just as well for noble Lords to have the terms of the clause in front of them—it seems to me that the power to arrest without warrant contained in Clause 41(1) is vulnerable. That clause goes far wider than what would be permissible under our ordinary law. A man cannot be arrested for being an armed robber; he can only be arrested when he has committed an act of armed robbery, or is about to do so. In the same way, a man cannot be arrested because he is believed to be a terrorist, however strong that belief may be.
The power of arrest is perfectly valid in so far as it applies to Clause 40(1)(a), but it is completely invalid in so far as it applies to Clause 40(1)(b), since that subsection does not create an offence. To make matters worse, the power of arrest also goes beyond what is permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights, which is written in very much the same terms, and has broadly the same effect, as our own law under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Arrest without warrant is a sensitive matter. As soon as the Human Rights Act comes into force it is as certain as anything can be that someone will challenge the power of arrest as it exists under Clause 41(1). As far as I can see, that challenge—I do not say that it is bound to succeed as nothing is certain—would be very likely to succeed. Thus my fear is that as soon as the Human Rights Act comes into force we shall be back again discussing this arrest power unless the Government can see their way—as I hope they may, even at this late stage—to introduce an amendment which would make it an offence to prepare an act of terrorism. I should have thought that would receive the support of all parties in the House.
That is all I have to say. In summary, there are some good things in this Bill. Above all, it is a good thing to have a Bill at all, but in several respects I believe that it falls short, in particular in the two respects I have mentioned. It is a useful consolidation, but it could have been so much more. I give it my welcome, but it is a slightly lukewarm one.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, last week I was interviewed on BBC Radio Sheffield on my views in relation to "Britishness". I said that freedom of speech and common sense were two main features of our British society.
I am concerned that the Terrorism Bill could infringe civil liberties and have enormous implications for international issues. Let me say at the outset that I support the Government in their determination to

1447
eliminate the threat of terrorism on mainland Britain and the UK territories. I would support in principle legislation to achieve that. However, I have anxieties about Clause 1 and its interpretation of terrorism; Clause 11, dealing with membership of a proscribed organisation; Clause 15, which relates to fund-raising; and Clause 59, which concerns the offence of inciting terrorism overseas.
Traditionally, individuals fleeing from persecution at the hands of their respective governments have sought to enjoy the protection and hospitality of the United Kingdom. Many have used British soil as a platform from which to voice opposition while operating strictly within the bounds of the law and exercising their democratic rights. However, those rights are being seriously curtailed.
I accept that there are one or two individuals who thrive on creating fear. I would have no hesitation in deporting them to their countries of origin, if that could be done. However, I am talking about dissidents who have escaped oppressive and tyrannical rulers and who campaign for the return of democracy or the right of self-determination in their countries of origin. I am talking about the freedom of British citizens who support various struggles abroad.
For example, I am a Kashmiri-born British citizen. I support the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people Many Members of Parliament and noble Lords attend public meetings and fund-raising dinners and make speeches against abuses of human rights in Kashmir. If this Bill is passed, shall I break the law in future when I support the Kashmiri people or their right to self-determination and the implementation of UN resolutions on Kashmir?
I ask for an explanation of the definition of "terrorism". This has already been mentioned. One person's "terrorist" could be another person's "freedom fighter-. Who will decide what constitutes a genuine freedom struggle? Will that be influenced by business contracts or relations with a particular regime? Would President Mandela, President Arafat, Prime Minister Begin or Archbishop Makarios be classed as freedom fighters or terrorists? In Kosovo the K LA was classed as a terrorist organisation by the Americans before NATO's involvement.
There are organisations regularly lobbying this House and supported by Members which are accused of terrorism. MKO, for example, an Iraqi based organisation with military style training camps outside Baghdad, claims responsibility for explosions in Tehran. Will Members of Parliament who support that organisation break the law in future in so doing?
An Act of Parliament can stay in force long after the government which created it have been replaced by one with a different agenda. There are many oppressive governments in the world today which abuse human rights, violate civil liberties and torture their opponents. We cannot turn a blind eye to massacres in Chechnya, Kosovo or Kashmir. We cannot forget the: freedom struggles in Tibet, Cyprus, Iraq and many other places. We must find the form of words that will stop terrorist threats but allow freedom of speech with regard to the right kind of struggles.
1448
As a Muslim Member of this House I wish to clarify an Islamic word which is frequently misused; namely, the word, "jihad". Jihad is often wrongly associated with terrorism by the western media and is occasionally abused by a self-appointed handful of leaders to fight their political and ideological causes. Jihad could be a struggle with oneself to give up evil and wrong habits. Jihad could be a community struggle against illegal activities, for example, the eradication of drugs and crime. It is a struggle for justice. Jihad could be a struggle to make one's environment cleaner and to achieve a better society. The last form of jihad is armed struggle, but only where a nation is suppressed by an oppressive force which abuses rights and engages in elimination.
Islam condemns terrorism committed by individuals or groups who want to promote their political ideology. Islam condemns attacks on civilians and peaceful targets. There is no excuse for any organisation to support these kind of activities. There is a fear among British Muslims that the Bill's proposals will affect the vast majority of law-abiding British citizens. Already allegations have been made that the secret services tried to recruit Imams to spy on Muslim congregations. Already British Kashmiris feel that their voices have been silenced in the interests of commercial gains in India. Let us not restrict our rights to support genuine struggles to achieve the right of self-determination and democracy. I support the Government's aim of preventing terrorism. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond in his comments tonight and in Committee to some of the concerns that I have expressed.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the speech which we have just heard, which I found extraordinarily interesting. It was one of several such speeches that we have heard so far.
I welcome the essential feature of the Bill; namely, that it consolidates into one piece of legislation this country's legislative response to the scourge of terrorism. That is a good thing, for all the reasons that have already been expressed.
I welcome it also because of something more particular. Its definition of "terrorism"—much has been said about its inadequacy and the difficulties to which it gives rise—does not make specific reference to Northern Ireland. That is new and it is good. It is good because it gets rid of the previous implication that was widely acknowledged that somehow terrorism in Northern Ireland was special in character. It was not. Certainly, it is something which the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have had to endure for far too long. That is beyond question. It certainly produced atrocities—Omagh has been mentioned more than once today—which were hideous in their cruelty and injustice, which is the hallmark of terrorism. It has certainly imposed on the sovereign power with responsibilities for Northern Ireland the most demanding challenges.

1449
All that is beyond question. Terrorism in Northern Ireland has not had a special character of its own. I welcome that aspect of the definition.
To that extent, I applaud the definition in Clause 1. But along with other noble Lords who have spoken, and in line with the candid remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who did not consider that his own definition was perfect, I believe, as I have listened to this debate, that we shall have to consider this question more fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, used a very compelling phrase when he said—I am sorry about my voice; I do not know whether your Lordships will be encouraged by this, but I hope that it will last out—that there should be freedom of speech for the right struggle. One cannot define "the right struggle" legislatively, but we all know exactly what the noble Lord has in mind.
It would wrong to rely on the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions to mitigate the danger of an over-wide definition. I say that not because I have anything but the greatest confidence in the Director of Public Prosecutions, but because I believe that the experience of the Attorney-General is generally such that he is better suited to take the kind of discretionary decision required in a case (such as that already mentioned) of terrorism intended to take place overseas. It is a last resort. One relies on the discretion of a prosecuting authority. If one can, it is far better to get a sufficiently precise definition. I wonder whether we have that. I am sure that we shall have to spend more time on it. Special provision for Northern Ireland is nevertheless necessary in our law. That is not our fault; it is the fault of those who maim, intimidate, evict, banish and thereby frustrate, as they intend, the normal mechanisms, although not the principles, of our criminal justice system.
I very much welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to pay tribute to the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which I commissioned jointly with my honourable friend Michael Howard. It has been widely referred to and admired in our debate today. That report recognises the continuing need for special provision in Northern Ireland. There has been a further bomb attack today following three attempted attacks within the past few weeks. We all hope that that need will disappear well before the five-year expiry date which is provided for in Part VII of the Bill. That the need persists today is beyond doubt. I believe that the report of Lord Diplock was published in 1971 or thereabouts. If one reads that, one will recognise the continuing need for the so-called "Diplock courts" to try scheduled offences without juries. It is necessary to say that because the continuance of the Diplock courts is questioned and even denied in some quarters, although that has not found expression today. The reason is that it is impossible to rely on juries to try scheduled offences—that is say, offences with a terrorist connection—because of giving way to either intimidation or bias. It is worth remembering that Lord Diplock was a most passionate assertor of the
1450
need for government and the executive to be subordinated to the rule of law. He, more than any other judge, was responsible for the creation of judicial review; yet he recommended non-jury trials in those cases. I believe that it is virtually beyond question that that need remains.
I also welcome in the Bill the retention of the Attorney-General's power to certify that a particular case, notwithstanding that it is in the schedule, should be certified out that it has no terrorist connection. It is much better that that provision should be retained for certifying out rather than that the Attorney-General should certify in, which was argued for by our political opponents in the previous administration. It is quite wrong that the Attorney-General, who is—and ought to be—a protector of individual liberties, should be placed in a position of having to curtail them in any particular case.
My final point concerns the European Court of Human Rights. It is sometimes supposed that it came into our lives only with the passing of the Human Rights Act. We have been subject to its obligations since we signed up in 1952. We have always heeded what the Court has told us. I cannot claim that the human rights of terrorists were foremost in my mind when I was confronting the consequences of what some of them had done. But even terrorists have them and a civilised society has to show that it remembers that. Subject to one or two points which have been alluded to, I expect that this Bill will meet the general test of the ECHR. In case it may be held not to in any particular, I trust—I hope that the Minister will confirm it—that the Government will not forget that the convention itself permits derogation from its provisions in what are sometimes called "proper cases". That power of derogation has been referred to today. It hinges on a perception of national emergency. I shall not detain the House by reading the text.
In that regard I mention something which has already been referred to; namely, the transfer to the judiciary of the present power to secure an additional period of detention before trial. In Northern Ireland at present, that is a responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Schedule 8 to the Bill deals with that. With great trepidation, I respectfully disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, when he says that this is a proper and desirable matter to be dealt with by the judiciary. The reason—no doubt we shall come back to it—is that such applications depend on extremely sensitive intelligence matters. They very often involve informers. If it were known that such matters were to be disseminated even to the very limited extent of confiding them to a magistrate or some other judicial authority, less information would come forward.
Similarly, I greatly question whether it is a truly justiciable matter to decide whether or not it is proper in these circumstances to extend detention before trial. As I recall it, Brogan does not require us to do this. Brogan states that we cannot keep those concerned away from a judicial authority for seven days, which was our practice, but that it will be all right if we do so

1451
for four. So it does not require that the matter has to go to a judicial authority. I hope that we shall come back to that issue in due course.
I congratulate the Government on the Bill. They have, broadly speaking, got the right balance—and balance is the essence of every government's responsibility in his field. I salute them for doing that. I hope that the no doubt surprising support from this quarter will lead them to consider with a certain amount of favour the subsequent suggestions that will come from this side of the House for improving the balance yet further.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. He came to Northern Ireland uniquely qualified to bring his sound judgment to bear on a whole range of issues. I share the view of many that he left a lasting impact on what one might call the science of governance in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Like him, I feel that we would be wise to reflect on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and to give consideration to the concerns that he has expressed.
In considering the Bill, we would do well to note the words of the Minister of State, Home Office, Mr Charles Clarke. He said in another place:
"The Government believe that every act of terrorism is a uniquely cowardly and barbaric crime".—[Official Report, Commons. 14/12/99: col. 230.]
In the same debate, the Home Secretary said that terrorism differs from other crimes in that it is directed at undermining the foundations of government. As we process this Bill through your Lordships' House, we shall do well to remember those wise words.
The Home Secretary went on to say that terrorism poses special difficulties for those of us who live in liberal democracies, where there are adequate, nonviolent means or expressing opposition and dissent. I welcome the fact that the Minister reinforced that point in your Lordships' House today.
At times it appears that other European nations are more successful in striking a fair balance. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, France paid a very heavy price for inaction several years ago. Germany and Italy effectively eliminated terrorism in earlier yearsx2014;but then they absolutely refused to compromise with terrorists. It is with sorrow that I say that Britain, on the other hand, has fed terrorism with concessions without end.
I admit that in the immediate aftermath of dastardly murders, some Ministers issue what I assume must be a recorded statement condemning the atrocity and asserting that the guilty will be hunted down and punished. They probably mean what they say, but the promise is never Fulfilled. Even if occasionally the mass murderer is caught—and even in the unlikely event of a conviction—the murderer will be released for some sordid political reasons.
1452
Regrettably the United Kingdom is seen as the weakling of Europe. It follows that if our reputation is to be redeemed, we must stop conceding terrorists' demands. Then, through legislation such as this excellent Bill, we must constrict and thwart all terrorist movements before they can succeed in weakening the will of government, which is their main objective.
In his excellent report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, gave sound advice on the continuing need for effective counter-terrorism legislation. He went on to tender the view that such legislation should cease to be specific to Northern Ireland. I have shared that view for many years since the introduction of what might one might term Mark 1 of the prevention of terrorism legislation.
At a later stage, when I invited my late colleague, Enoch Powell, to serve on the committee on the then Bill, he succeeded in persuading the committee, and subsequently the other place, to extend the measure to cover more effectively the whole of the United Kingdom. I am glad that we are continuing down that path.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, will welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has, for the most part, accepted his sound advice. We have all noted his reservations, and it is to be hoped that we shall return to those at a later stage in our deliberations.
During the period since the introduction of the Bill, voices have been raised about the wisdom of delaying the legislation until the optimistic belief in a total cessation of violence in Northern Ireland has been realised. I humbly suggest that such a delay would expose the people of the United Kingdom to terrorism from other quarters—a threat made much more real by dramatic advances in high technology of the type that Churchill referred to as "perverted science". The House would do well to heed the warnings given on these matters by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, supported as he was by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The vulnerability of modern civilisation to ruthless enemies of democracy was brought home to me some years ago at the international airport in Perth, Western Australia. When I congratulated the senior security officer at that airport on the high standard of security there was probably a note of my surprise in my voice. He surprised me when he explained that his vigilance and technology would continue to be developed and enhanced. He then added these words:
"because the law-abiding will always be at the mercy of mass murderers".
That was said perhaps a decade ago. Regrettably, that forecast was all too correct.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am concerned that the Bill as it stands could allow future governments, if they so chose, to blur the line between terrorism—which should always be considered the most serious of offences—and protest. At the very least there should be within the Bill a

1453
requirement for a full parliamentary debate every few years about the organisations that should fall within the category of proscribed terrorist organisations. The legislation should be subject to renewal.
This is necessary because, as we look back over the past century, many of the protest movements which we now recognise as having furthered the causes of human rights and peace could have fallen within the definitions of terrorists in the Bill if the government of the day had been so minded.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said about the definition of "serious violence". It is to me an extremely difficult thing to define, as it obviously has been in the other place, and before then. Violence against property could be considered serious by its extent, by the extent to which it threatened the establishment, or by the extent to which it intimidated people. If it is defined against the violence perpetrated by the suffragette protests, by the Greenham Common women, at the poll tax protests and at anti-road building protests, it could be measured in many different ways. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Goodhart about Clause 12. The clause requires considerable further debate in your Lordships' House.
The need to protest will never go away. The issues change, and I hope protest will always be peaceful and respectful of property, and never violent against people. But, from time to time through history, the young especially see the iniquity of a path the establishment is trying to follow. They may raise their voices, and sometimes their fists, and they may make life very difficult for that establishment, but we should not allow it in perpetuity to decide what causes are really terrorist causes and what are embarrassments to be silenced. The line between terrorism and protest is a difficult line to define. I hope that your Lordships' House, with its extensive and most knowledgeable view of history, will be able to define the differences and then amend the Bill to preclude any possibility of future governments being able to misuse this legislation to crush the legitimate protests of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have a confession to make. I spent my morning with a terrorist. I listened to him and we all applauded. Of course, it was Nelson Mandela. That is a cheap trick, I know, but I had to do it today. Let us make no mistake about it, Nelson Mandela was about to engage in destroying a state with which we have friendly relations.
My main concerns about the Bill are not so much about what we do in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom. My main concerns are about subsection (2) of Clause 1, which extends some of these offences to activity against any other country. I am not a lawyer and so my understanding of it may be defective. When in 1998 we met hurriedly to pass a counter-terrorism
1454
Bill, I said that I was unhappy about the international parts of the Bill, although I quite understood that the Northern Ireland parts were entirely necessary.
My noble friend the Minister quite correctly set out the liberal doctrine that when a society has a democratically elected government legitimate protest is possible but certain kinds of protest, especially protest leading to serious violence, are not permissible. I quite agree. I have no quarrel with that. But some people may not agree. We agree that ours is democratic liberal state. As I have previously said in debates on Northern Ireland, the problems of Northern Ireland are the result of the post-colonial situation. There is a minority that does not agree about the legitimacy of the state. They are wrong about it but they do not agree. That raises problems.
While I agree that the anti-terrorism Acts were entirely necessary, what brought us towards peace was the courageous decision by a former Conservative Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to negotiate with the terrorists. Let us make no bones about it. Every other colonial situation has ended by the government in power negotiating with terrorists. Terrorists become Prime Ministers. Menachem Begin became Prime Minister. He was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Archbishop Makarios was a terrorist.
If UK citizens or people who are not UK citizens but are resident in the UK protest about other governments, which may not be democratic liberal governments, what are we going to do about that? If we then say that they are committing a terrorist offence, we will deny our age-old tradition of protecting and encouraging such dissent. That worries me. Let us take, as an example, someone who is plotting the overthrow of the government of Myanmar. I do not like the government of Myannmar. I do not care how legitimate they are. They are an evil government who ought to end. Let us take, as an example, the problem of Chechnya. The Russians have argued that the bombing in Moscow was carried out by terrorists from Chechnya. Some people have serious doubts about that and believe that it was carried out by Russian Mafia to encourage the invasion of Chechnya. If a group of Chechen refugees here were unhappy about that, under the Bill they would have to be arrested as terrorists. I have doubts about the extension of Clause 1(I) and (2) to all other parts. If my noble friend Lord Ahmed covered this matter when he spoke, I apologise to him.
There are other areas much closer to British life, but because of the south Asian diaspora we have people here who feel very strongly about Kashmir and Sri Lanka. Although the government of India are a democratic liberal government, there are genuine differences among the Kashmiris about its legitimacy. We really ought to think very carefully about not having too broad a definition of terrorism and, whatever definition we use, we should not extend it too broadly to here, there and everywhere. If we do that, we will certainly be creating an injustice. I do not know whether we shall fall foul of the European Court but I do feel that we shall be creating an injustice.

1455
I very much welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Change sometimes comes about through means which at the time were thought not to be legitimate. I have spent a lot of my life in protest. Every time I took part in protest, it was not thought to be good or legal. I am proud to say that the Daily Express said that I should be deported. Having spent my youth on protest marches and supporting various other dubious causes, I feel somewhat hesitant about letting this go by without a small protest.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this Bill is much appreciated and an attempt to legislate against all forms of terrorism by consolidating all the different Bills into one is welcome and timely, especially when international terrorism abounds. It is essential that there can be no misunderstanding nor delay when implementing the provisions of this Bill, as speed of action is an essential ingredient if terrorists are to be arrested. As I understand it, this Bill empowers the police to take action against terrorists and terrorism. Without it, it would be very nearly impossible for the police to carry out their investigations to enable them to bring terrorists to trial. It is therefore a critical piece of legislation in which there can be no loopholes.
As many noble Lords have said, it is most important that the definition of terrorism is clear, and I am not sure that the proposed definition is satisfactory. I am not happy with the phrase, "serious violence", as it could he confusing. Some people might think that some violence against any person or property might not appear to be serious on first examination, and yet, very soon after find out that it was extremely serious but not detectable at first sight. Generally speaking, I believe that the definition which was in Section 20 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, if slightly amended, could be retained as a definition for use in this Bill. If that were the case, the definition would read: "The use of violence for political, religious or ideological causes, which includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear".
It is most satisfactory to bring all proscribed terrorist organisations under one Bill and Part II deals with that. However, the list would appear to be somewhat restricted. Surely it would be better to include all the most dangerous international terrorist organisations in the Bill before it is enacted, as opposed to the Secretary of State having to add other organisations such as ETA and Middle Eastern factions such as that of Osama bin Laden at a later date. The current list seems only to include Irish terrorist organisations and none of the international ones and, since this Bill is trying to include international terrorism, it seems somewhat strange to exclude those overseas terrorist factions.
In relation to Part III of the Bill concerning terrorist property, I find it confusing and difficult to understand why it does not seem possible to list in this section what constitutes "other property". I am unable to find any reference to the inclusion of arms, explosives and bomb-making equipment as part of
1456
"terrorist property" until the Northern Ireland part of the Bill, Part VII. Part II, dealing with terrorist property in Clause 14(1)(a), states that "terrorist property" means "money or other property"; but there is no description of what the other property might be, although the clause states that the other property is likely to be used for the purpose of terrorism. Clause 57 in Part IV states:
"A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism".
However, it is not until the reader reaches Clause 77 in Part VII, the part on Northern Ireland, that reference is made to weapons and explosives. Even then, no reference is made to bomb-making equipment such as batteries and timing devices. If the Bill is to encompass terrorism throughout the United Kingdom, surely the matters to which I have referred should not be contained solely in Part VII relating to Northern Ireland particularly, but should be applicable throughout the Bill and included at a much earlier stage.
I should like to comment on Part VII of the Bill, dealing with Northern Ireland. Before doing so, perhaps I may refer to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, and say how much I agree with his wise pronouncement that it is the Secretary of State and not the judiciary who should make decisions in relation to the time in arrest. I have worked in the intelligence organisation and I should be particularly disturbed if I thought that any of the information that I gleaned, either myself or from other people, was being passed to anyone but the Secretary of State to make up his mind about such matters.
Returning to Part VII of the Bill, without retaining and empowering the Security Forces with this legislation, it would be impossible for them to carry out their duties as proficiently as they do. Since the ceasefire, killings, maimings, assaults and bullying, threats, targeting, intelligence gathering, training and recruiting has continued to be carried out by IRA/Sinn Fein. It is possible that the ceasefire might be broken or even completely ended. If that should happen, the situation could deteriorate extremely rapidly, with terrorist incidents taking place not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
The peace agreement is exceptionally fragile and only delicately held together. Now is not the time to weaken our resolve by weak terrorist legislation, or to lower our guard or cave in to any more IRA/Sinn Fein demands. It would be utterly wrong to change the name of the RUC, remove the Royal Crown or reduce its strength, as suggested in the Patten report, when no decommissioning of weapons and explosives has taken place. No more prisoners should be released until decommissioning of all weapons and explosives has taken place, and all those who have taken part in terrorist attacks since their release from prison should be returned to prison. There may even

1457
be a case for re-examining internment. If that is agreed, it should be included on the face of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Cope has said.
Since the ceasefire, there have been 50 deaths, 147 shootings and 276 assaults and punishment beatings—in many cases resulting in people being maimed for life. It is very welcome that the Government have retained the Diplock Courts, the current provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act under Part VII of the Bill. The RUC, the Armed Forces and all the other security agencies have carried out their duties in an exemplary manner and the country owes them a great debt of gratitude. Without the strongest government support with the correct legislation—that is our responsibility in this Bill—the Security Forces are put at greater risk and their tasks are made more difficult. This is not the time to be seen to be caving in again to the demands of IRA/Sinn Fein. Overall, I welcome and support the Bill, although there may be cause for some further discussion in Committee on some of the points I have raised.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, on behalf of the Green Party, I welcome the Bill. The bulk of its provisions are probably necessary. We should have no doubt that the strongest steps must be taken against terrorism.
A number of noble Lords have expressed doubts about some of the detail of the legislation. I shall probably find myself in the same Lobby at Committee stage as my ex-colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party, challenging some of the provisions that seem to impinge on civil liberties.
With the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others, we must examine the whole question of terrorism abroad. I came here today via the Royal Festival Hall where I had a meeting and passed by the wonderful sculptured head of Nelson Mandela. It reminded me that we must be very careful when discussing terrorism abroad. It is true that last year's terrorists are this year's statesmen. That is not to excuse some of the terrorism that takes place. But we in this country are not the best judges of which foreign countries are so oppressive that terrorism is, or is not, justified. There are a number of countries in the world which flourish under seeming democracy but which are oppressive and where one can excuse people trying to take the law slightly into their own hands.
Here I draw an important distinction, as do the Government, between violence against people and violence against property. We must clamp down on violence against property which leads to violence against people, not simply violence against property. The latter is nothing like as serious as violence to people.
In seeking to arrive at a proper definition of "terrorism" the Government have often invited suggestions for alternatives but when presented in
1458
another place they have been rejected as not good enough. I hope that this House, as usual, will have a more logical debate.
Provisions which create an offence if a person is in possession of a document, such as a map or other information, or is on the same premises as items such as a set of car keys carry the presumption of guilt, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and can be used against lawyers and journalists in the course of their professional duty as well as against those who work with refugee communities. We must consider whether the provisions go too far. The Bar Human Rights Committee and the Criminal Bar Association have serious doubts about those provisions and the whole approach to the definition.
One does not want to give comfort to terrorists or those who use or threaten violence and put people in fear of their life, liberty and limb, but one has a duty to support civil liberties in this country. I am absolutely certain that that duty will be upheld by your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will reassure the House that his noble friend, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose name is notably absent from the list of speakers, will be here at Committee stage to help us. I welcome the Bill, but it requires improvement and a great deal of caution. I am sure that noble Lords will spend a long time on the Bill in Committee and at Report stage. I do not say that I look forward to that, but I hope that in the process we shall improve it.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, may well be right to urge caution but, above all, we must apply wisdom to this matter. I offer the House no promise of a learned contribution or great knowledge in this field. When I first entered Parliament in 1970 my interest was largely academic, in that Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, had lived in my constituency—two miles from my home—350 years earlier and had been largely responsible for (although not the originator of) the plantations whose historic legacy we see today.
In representing a constituency in which there was a high rate of military recruitment I quickly learnt the cost of terror. One morning in the 1970s my friend Gerald Greenwood, the vicar of Kiveton Park, rang to ask me to meet him because a terrible problem had arisen in the parish. A young soldier called Barucki had been blown to pieces in Belfast the day before. He had been a very kind and most impressive soldier. The family were churchgoers. The vicar had been called to assist. Despite attempts by the vicar and the major to dissuade the mother, she insisted on opening her son's coffin. That was a very unpleasant constituency obligation. His father, who blamed himself for his son joining the Parachute Regiment, had fought in the second world war in Poland, reached Britain and remained in the regiment afterwards. The boy's ambition had been to follow in his father's footsteps, and at the age of 19 he found himself in Belfast for just three days. Both the mother and father died in relatively early middle age. I believe that they died of

1459
a broken heart. While Private Barucki's name was on the war memorial in the village, his parents' names were not. Another boy was killed. His mother, a widow, came to my surgery on many occasions. She was embittered and full of hate, which disfigured her life and made me very uneasy at our regular meetings.
I visited Northern Ireland on several occasions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, may recall that once I enjoyed his kindness and hospitality. On one occasion one of the local regiments, including a good number of my constituents, were in Northern Ireland. I met a young soldier from my constituency who asked me whether I intended to go to his home village of Thurcroft. I said that I had a meeting there the following Saturday. He asked me to call on his mother, who knew me, and tell her that I had seen her son and to give her his good wishes and so on. When she opened the door of her house, which was very close to the hall where the meeting was to be held, she turned white. During the period when her son had been serving in Northern Ireland she had lived with a very real fear. I regretted having gone, but I was able to reassure her that her son was well.
That is the human cost. As my noble friend has pointed out, thousands of such tragedies have occurred and we must apply wisdom in responding to them. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will not mind my disagreeing with him in relation to his observations about economic cost. I agree that in principle life is more important than property, but if property is damaged to the point where investment is deterred, jobs are destroyed and hopelessness is brought upon society, the scale of property destruction can become unacceptable. One does not think of the massive inconvenience experienced by some of us in the north of England who, in the period of high tension, had to travel to London each week. It required a great deal of ingenuity to find one's way to the House of Commons on Monday and to return at the end of the week, which might have been a rather more serious matter.
The cost of destruction has been enormous. I recall that half a century ago when I was a student living in Westminster I saw the then Prime Minister, Mr Attlee, walking down Victoria Street without bodyguards or fuss. One could enter St James's Park and see people walking about without any inhibitions. Today, they would be surrounded by security. It would be nice to go back to a society in which there were litter bins on railway stations. The cost of destruction as well as murder is very high, and it is right that the Government should take a major interest in this matter.
One of the reasons why I speak in this debate is that I served on the Council of Europe for some time. I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Cope of Berkeley, also graced the Assembly at that time. However, I do not believe that they were members when I was appointed chairman of a committee to deal with terrorism at about the time of the Lockerbie bombing. I was concerned because a number of member states, unlike the United Kingdom and others, did not appear to be sufficiently resolute or
1460
willing to act with solidarity. At that time one or two member states seemed to be half-hearted in joining in condemnation of the horrifying mayhem of Lockerbie.
I prepared a report which sought to improve matters. I recall that I was briefed by the Foreign Office on Lockerbie. I also met Libyan representatives in Strasbourg who were not eager to accept the evidence of the Foreign Office. I hope that the trial will verify its accuracy. It has always been difficult to get to Strasbourg, as one or two noble Lords will recall. The report was due on a Monday afternoon. Unfortunately, after 36 hours attempting to get to Strasbourg, I had to ring my opponent—my opposite number, friend and, at that time, my pair, Lord Finsberg. He had managed to reach Strasbourg; it was easier from London than Yorkshire. He had to present my report at short notice. It went through. But I am still not sure that there is adequate international response. I welcome the latest attempt to achieve an international instrument which could influence matters.
In addition to preventing and detecting the crimes of terrorism, we should be assaulting the resources of terrorism. The latest convention in January of this year seems to offer us the possibility of taking a significant step forward. If schoolboys can hack into the citadels of state security in the Pentagon and other national, supposedly secure, records, our intelligence services should be able to hack into the records of the movement of those funds and resources which allow terrorist weapons to be maintained.
I should like my noble friend to tell us what progress is being made in the ratification and implementation of the international convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism. I note with interest and a little concern that the convention has not been ratified by the United Kingdom. We need countries to stand shoulder to shoulder in these matters. Britain has always been foremost in seeking to marry the needs of freedom with those of common sense. I hope that we shall consider the matter with interest. If there are reasons why we have not ratified it, I should like to know them. If there are areas where we should derogate, we need to be informed of that, perhaps during Committee stage.
The cost of terror is enormous. I mentioned that 50, or even 30, years ago people—even Prime Ministers—could walk freely in London. People could get inside Parliament without difficulty, hindrance or obstacle. We need to get back to that situation if we can. We should not have to face the permanent, ongoing expenditure—it may assist the economy of London —with scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of people engaged in necessary, essential security work, in occupations which create remarkably little wealth even if they protect that which exists already.
Some of my noble friends have referred to the need for freedom and liberty. But freedom and liberty depend on people being able to live at peace. While we must have due regard for those principles, those who have nothing to fear have nothing to hide. Those who

1461
are eager to promote fear among others should themselves be fearful of the possibility at least, if not the certainty, of apprehension.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, unfortunately, terrorism is a part of the European culture. In the last century it spread to the Middle East and Africa. Interestingly, it has never really taken root in the United States. That is why Americans are so outraged by it. And never let us forget what a powerful weapon against terrorism public outrage is.
Terrorism has not really taken root in the Far East. I exclude the Triads, a criminal organisation. I exclude the Thugs of India, another criminal organisation. I exclude Sri Lanka. That is really a civil war. The tragedy is that the civil war in Sri Lanka has been continuing for 2,500 years. The Tamils were throwing the King of Kandy off his throne in 500 BC.
A major problem is differentiating between political terrorism and crime. Some terrorists masquerade as freedom fighters. Some terrorists are freedom fighters. I am more concerned with the criminals who masquerade as terrorists. That is generally the case in Northern Ireland. Only a small minority of either Sinn Fein/IRA or the so-called loyalist paramilitaries can genuinely claim to be terrorists, let alone freedom fighters. The great majority are much more akin to the Mafia, living the good life by criminal extortion and other rackets.
I believe that Mr Jack Straw is an excellent Home Secretary of whom any political party should be proud. The Government have taken much trouble in forming the legislation. Much of it is based on the Lloyd report. I join in the tributes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is a particularly interesting report. For those who have not read it, volume 2, by Professor Paul Wilkinson of the University of St Andrews, is of especial interest. My interest in these matters goes back some 16 years as a political journalist.
I am slightly worried about the name of the Bill. I would have preferred it to be called the "Prevention of Terrorism Bill" because there is no form of crime in which the priority for ex-ante prevention more clearly outweighs that for ex-post detection. An analogy which may apply to us all is that of viruses in our computers. It is a great deal more important to stop the virus getting in than to have the sweat of getting rid of it.
I have two points of substance. The first is to draw attention to a lacuna. The second is an unease at certain provisions in the Bill. On the lacuna, advances in technology have made terrorist prevention more possible. Fear of detection, as with any crime, is a most powerful deterrent and thus prevention. There have been a number of new technologies in recent years. The most obvious is closed circuit television. There is huge scope for greater use of CCTV. It is being used very successfully, notably in the ring of steel around the
1462
City of London and at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel when any wanted vehicle can now be detected and stopped rapidly.
However, I believe—I put evidence to the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—that the time has come for better identification of individuals. I am not talking about identity cards, useful though they might be. I recognise the repugnance that at least in this country the carrying of identity cards generates. I am talking about identity numbers. We all have multiple official numbers and multiple unofficial ones. Let us take the official ones—passports, driving licences, and social security, national health (the old identity number from the war), criminal record, and prison record numbers. Interestingly, if an individual goes to one prison he has one number; if he goes to a different prison he has a different number. They do not link up. The time has come for every British citizen to be given a simple identity number to be used in all their dealings with the state. It would simplify life; it would reduce the costs of bureaucracy; and it would greatly help to prevent and fight crime and terrorism. The Bill could have provided the opportunity to introduce that. It is particularly important that such a number should be given to every person who enters the country illegally.
The identity number would have to be linked with physical identification—photographs, fingerprints or, where appropriate, DNA or other blood tests.
My second point relates to my unease about threats which I have seen. I refer in particular to representations from the society of editors which represents editors drawn from the regional and national press, together with their counterparts in broadcasting. I fear that the Bill as drafted is a threat to journalistic newsgathering, investigation and reporting. I emphasise that, together with Parliament, the media, for all their obvious failings and often unattractive and unacceptable behaviour, form part of the guardianship of the freedom of our society and thus of our democracy.
Some clauses, already referred to, outlaw involvement in meetings of proscribed organisations. I remember that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when I was working for The Economist, I obtained a better understanding of the political situation in this country by attending meetings of various terrorist inclined or supporting bodies. Some of them were at the fringe of, although not part of, Labour Party conferences. However, I am worried about Clauses 57 and 58 and sanctions against the possession of information that could be used for terrorism.
I remember Sir Robert Mark, a distinguished former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, saying years ago—and it no longer applies—that one of the reasons the IRA was so ineffective was that its members were so dim they always used a Who's Who which was about six years old. Now we live in a world in which parliamentarians, at least those in another place, are recommended to omit their addresses from Who's Who.

1463
During the Second Reading debate in the other place on 14th December, the Home Secretary said that if there were ways in which the Bill could be improved, it was our duty to accept those suggestions. I hope that in reply the Minister will tell us that that is a genuine invitation which applies to your Lordships' House. If it does, I am sure that we will accept it and make good use of it.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, in this Bill, the definition of terrorism is so loosely and vaguely phrased that it could include those who destroy a laboratory which is used for animal experimentation and yet exclude an organisation which is dedicated to the violent termination of sovereignty in part of the United Kingdom.
Any meaningful definition of "terrorism" must include a specific reference to the conspiracy of politically motivated individuals who, either through public or secret organisations, advocate, support, justify or plan violent actions aimed at undermining the state.
It strikes me as fundamentally wrong that an organisation which contrives and commits terrorist acts may fall within the proposed definitions of this Bill and yet the political front for that organisation—a front which both excuses those acts and raises the possibility of further acts as a political lever—is not and would not be covered by the definition.
Terrorism manifests itself in many forms. It would be foolish to believe that a loose definition of what it entails, together with an existing list of proscribed organisations, would do anything to defeat it, if we continue to allow the political apologists for the terrorist organisations to represent their views within democratic institutions. Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, and we must have a definition that recognises it in all its forms.
Furthermore, I fail to understand why the proscribed organisations listed in the Bill do not include the Provisional Irish Republican Army by name, nor, indeed, the Real IRA, the organisation responsible for the Omagh bomb on 15th August 1998. Once we have a tighter and more accurate definition of terrorism it becomes easier to recognise the actual terrorist.
Within the provisions of this Bill, a terrorist may be defined as someone who belongs to, invites support for, raises funds for, or provides weapons instructions to a proscribed organisation. But it does not include someone who is known to represent the interests and aims of that organization; or who may be in direct contact with that organisation; or who seeks to excuse and explain the violent and illegal activities of that organisation. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and, again, we must have a definition that recognises him or her in whatever form.
I also believe that the Bill should recognise and accommodate the need for the power of internment without trial to be permanently available to the state. The nature of terrorism and the terrorist—and
1464
particularly so, given the looseness of the definitions within this Bill—make it extremely difficult to obtain the evidence necessary for reasonably rapid conviction.
While it is undoubtedly true that internment could be introduced to meet a particular terrorist threat, it is equally true that the period required to introduce it robs it of the elements of surprise and deterrence and thereby defeats its primary purposes.
I am also surprised that the Bill makes no provision for cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, especially in view of the fact that the Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations use the Republic of Ireland to store their arsenals and house their members. That omission seems even more strange when we recall that the 1998 Belfast agreement commits the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to,
"consult regularly on progress, and the response to any continuing paramilitary activity, with the Irish Government".
Consultation is no substitute for clearly defined areas of counter-terrorist co-operation.
There is much in this Bill that I welcome. However, I am concerned that the terrorism which poses the gravest threat to the geographical and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is the very terrorism which is least clearly defined and least adequately dealt with in the Bill. There is evidence, much of it from our experience in Northern Ireland, that terrorist organisations have discovered that it is possible to exploit and manipulate existing legislation in order that they can continue their campaign within what are supposedly democratic institutions. Much of the blame for this pollution of democracy can be sourced to the weak and slackly worded definitions of "terrorist" and "terrorism" within existing legislation.
I believe that this Bill has neither addressed nor resolved the problems inherent within previous definitions. Rather, it has repeated them and in so doing will allow terrorism to continue by other means. I urge the Government to reconsider and then strengthen the definitions.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the Minister and to noble Lords for the fact that I had to be out of the Chamber for too many, I am sure, most interesting speeches. I had a commitment which I could not break, and I apologise.
I shall confine my comments to the effect of the Bill on Northern Ireland. Of course there will and already has been long discussion on the definition of terrorism. Increasingly, I am concerned about the regular campaign of terror, harassment, intimidation and brutal violence by paramilitaries against their own communities, as well as against their opponents. It seems to have been accepted wearily by the Government and the country as a fact of life which cannot be changed. It has even been described as "paramilitaries doing their internal housekeeping".

1465
That campaign should be changed, and for that reason I join with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in wishing to see, as at least one part of the definition of terrorism, the retention of the phrase:
"The use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear".
"Health and safety" is a rather anodyne phrase and may lead to a failure to use the might of the law, while "serious violence" might be taken as too strong a definition of paramilitary beatings. There must be something in between. I hope that we keep all those definitions.
I cannot help fearing that the Act will be used sparingly, both to create an illusion of peace and because, for example, the failure to act against the bombers of Omagh (thanks to the inability of both the Garda and the RUC to prosecute known suspects because of the successful intimidation of witnesses) has rendered the would-be tough provisions of the 1998 legislation virtually void.
That brings me to another issue: the question of the Irish Government's role in the fight against terrorism, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. At present, they are only too ready to initiate negotiations with the IRA on our behalf; for example, on the issue of our military presence and on the disgraceful remains Act. However, they play no part in the control of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The Garda and the RUC work together admirably; we all know that. However, since hot pursuit is forbidden, there is nothing to prevent the escape of terrorists over the Border, nor the use by the IRA of a friendly European Union country as a safe base. Not all the close collaboration over Omagh has made it possible to bring those murderers to justice because on both sides of the Border witnesses fear for their lives and will not give evidence. Incidentally, if true, it is deeply disturbing that, according to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the police in Northern Ireland have,
"steadfastly refused to rely on the evidential provision in respect of membership of terrorist organisations introduced after the Omagh bomb on the ground that to do so would probably result in an adverse decision at Strasbourg and renewed international condemnation of their actions".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has already made that point far better than I could.
Very wisely, the Irish Government have retained not only their own version of the Diplock courts—the special criminal courts—but also the power of internment. In the past, they pointed out that they could not effectively use that power, had they wished to do so, because the same powers of internment do not now exist in Northern Ireland. I hope that during the passage of this Bill through our House close attention will be given to the need to harmonise our powers with regard to terrorists with those of the Irish Government, who have been wise enough to retain what they have and what they might some day need. Surely, it is right that they should put the need to protect the public before any rights which may be claimed for those who threaten them by the European
1466
Court of Human Rights. If the Irish Government claim a right to pronounce on the decisions of our Secretary of State, let us ensure that their actions to contain and defeat terrorism complement ours.
The Offences Against the State Act 1939, which is still in force in the Republic of Ireland, provides for action to be taken against,
"the obstruction by force of arms or other violent means or by any form of intimidation of the carrying on of the Government of the State (whether legislative, judicial or executive)",
and against,
"any act of violence or interference with a member of a lawfully established military or police force",
and against,
"raising and maintaining an armed force without constitutional authority".
Not least, it provides that the property of such an organisation will become forfeit to the state. I wonder whether that last provision could be called in aid of the seizure of IRA arms. However, I recognise that, for political reasons, in the real world the Irish Government will not dare to do so because, as Gerry Adams once warned the Labour Party conference, it would be as unwise as to kick a sleeping dog. I strongly maintain that Clauses 14 to 18 of the Bill on terrorist property, fund-raising and money-laundering will be rendered null and void unless and until the Irish Government can be persuaded to enact complementary legislation. Surely, Sinn Fein/IRA will simply move all such operations to the Republic, if they have not already largely done so.
Finally, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I cannot help feeling that it is premature to debate this Bill when the report on the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, which is closely related to it, has only just become available for consultation. Fortunately, my concern about the need to ensure that the complementary nature of Irish legislation is considered is recognised in the Belfast agreement's provision for consultation with the Irish Government. However, I am a great deal less happy about the intention expressed in that agreement to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues. That is in no way consonant with the policy rightly followed in this Bill to make legislation on terrorism as far as possible national, and to recognise that Northern Ireland voted by a majority to be (as it is) part of the United Kingdom and not a colony.
The time has not yet come to consider devolution. Yesterday, The Times carried the story of two teenagers who last August were exiled from Northern Ireland by the IRA on pain of death. They begged to be allowed to return to see their father, who was dying of liver cancer. According to FAIT (Families Against Intimidation and Terror), a letter was sent to Mr Gerry Adams begging him to intervene to allow them to return safely. There was no reply. On the intervention of a Catholic priest, the IRA agreed this week to a temporary lifting of the ban to allow them to return and visit their dying father. One of them came too late. His father is dead. A Sinn Fein spokesman said that it was "nothing to do with Gerry Adams". If that is the

1467
attitude of the leader of Sinn Fein/IRA in the Executive, I believe that devolution must wait for rather a long time. After all, he is there because he is a member of the IRA.
Recent events, and not least the admirable Rowe report, certainly suggest that this is not the moment to lower our guard and weaken in any way the forces of law and order which have so well protected us throughout the United Kingdom. I have a good deal of faith in the firmness and resolve of the present Secretary of State, his commitment to good sense and to the proper support of the rule of law.
I have one word to say about terrorism in general, whether it is the brutal and arrogant behaviour of some of the more fanatical in the animal rights lobby who have sent letter bombs to at least one distinguished scientist—a friend of mine, whose children could have been killed—or the fanatics who believe that their religion justifies murder in the form of a fatwa, or the paramilitary training of gullible young men in the same cause.
We should maintain our long and honourable tradition of giving asylum to political fugitives, but we should not allow them to forget that the ancient laws of hospitality that have long obtained throughout the world require them to consider the safety and the interests of those who have sheltered them. Wars should not be conducted from a safe base at the expense of the hosts, nor should it be normal for those who accept out hospitality, still less assume our citizenship, to abuse it. Those who raise and train militants must surely fall within the scope of this Bill.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is always a pleasure and of interest to follow the noble Baroness, even if in this instance I do not agree with everything that she said. Perhaps I may refer to that in a few moments.
I believe that most of us can remember the time when one could walk as a tourist—as an ordinary person—straight to the door of 10 Downing Street with no gates intervening, when one could gain access to Parliament without the security gates, when one could take a plane without going through security checks and when offices and buildings were open to everyone. I believe that it is a sad comment on what has happened in recent years that we now have security provisions as part of everyday life.
I am afraid that I take a more pessimistic view than the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in my belief that terrorism is widespread and is here to stay, no matter what we do. I fear that international terrorism has become more powerful and sinister. We have seen thousands of deaths and injuries, not only in the United Kingdom but also in many other countries, due to acts of terrorism.
Of course, the bomb in Omagh is still the most recent terrible atrocity in the United Kingdom. I know that that one bomb will have a lasting effect on the people of Northern Ireland, both those who were in or near Omagh on the day and those who were further away.
1468
During my two and a half years in Northern Ireland I was always aware that, whereas my family and I had not been directly affected by terrorism and none of my family or friends had been injured or killed, yet most people in Northern Ireland whom I met had had a death or injury in their family or the death or injury of a friend due to terrorism over the past 30 years. I always felt that, when I had some political disagreements with people in Northern Ireland, it was important to remember that they had inevitably been scarred by dreadful experiences which I had been lucky enough to escape. My own Private Secretary, although mercifully not injured, had been a very close to a bomb a few years ago in Banbridge. I did not know that from her until many months after she began working for me. She did not even tell me.
Therefore, it is important for us to know and realise how many people have been directly affected by those terrible events. It is for that reason that we need legislation. The Government must do what they can, with the security forces, to protect people from those terrible incidents.
Of course I believe that the level of violence in Northern Ireland has decreased. That is a relief to people, though there is still a level of violence there, as the noble Baroness mentioned. However, I disagreed with her when she said that the Government are not fully exercised about that. The Government are determined to do what they can to reduce the deplorable attacks which take place in both communities and which lead to murder, knee-cappings and other forms of mutilation.
I also differed a little from the views of the noble Baroness when she referred to the Irish Government. I believe that a lot of progress has been made in tackling terrorism through close co-operation between our Government and the Irish Government; through the close co-operation, to which she did refer, between the RUC and the Gardai. After all, there have been some notable arms finds by the Gardai, not least of which was a bomb on its way to England which was found at Dun Laoghaire. The level of co-operation and diligence and the level of success against terrorism in the authorities in the Republic have been increasing over the years.
Reference has been made to the Diplock courts. It is sad that they remain but they do remain a feature of the system in Northern Ireland, although I understand that the Government are reviewing those courts and that the outcome of the review will be known at about Easter time.
I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and one or two other noble Lords in relation to internment. I believe that it is a good thing that internment is not on the statute book. I do not believe that any democratic country which believes in the rule of law can easily return to a process of arresting and locking up people and holding them without charge. That goes against so many of our traditions and I believe that it is counterproductive because it makes martyrs of those people who are held and detained. The last time we had internment was a time when, on all the evidence, the

1469
terrorist organisations gained recruits because of the internment process. I should not like to see that restored and I am happy that it is no longer on the statute book.
I share the view that it is a good thing that exclusion orders are no longer available because they are one aspect of the Prevention of Terrorism Act that I never liked. It is a sign of progress that we do not have them any more and they will not return.
Terrorism is not confined to Northern Ireland but I want to make one or two comments just about the situation in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the legislation is now to be UK-wide and that those clauses which refer to Northern Ireland are there temporarily and will not have a permanent life.
I believe that the legislation improves the rights of suspects. It brings the procedures nearer to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was closely involved when he was Minister of State at the Home Office many years ago, when I served on the Standing Committee which dealt with that legislation. I am sure that he remembers that.
I welcome the fact that extension orders are to be decided judicially rather than ministerially. I had to sign quite a few over the years. I looked at them carefully. I spent a lot of time dealing with each one before I was prepared to sign it. But I still believe that it is proper that the process of detaining people while awaiting charge—before charge—should be determined in a judicial rather than ministerial way. That is a move for the better.
I am bound to say in relation to all the orders which I signed that, with only two exceptions, they all kept the period of detention within the PACE limits of 96 hours. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, indeed said that he prefers ministerial rather than judicial signatures on extension orders, but surely any extension of the period of custody under PACE is determined judicially and not ministerially. So in one sense, we are moving closer to PACE in what we are doing.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the noble Lord referred kindly to our previous association. The distinction that I want to make is that, under PACE, it is seldom that the matter turns upon sensitive intelligence, whereas in the matters with which he and I dealt over so many years, it was very rare for them not to.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I accept that. But I was making the general point that it is desirable that we should bring this legislation as close to PACE as possible, where that is consistent with the need to deal with terrorism. It is better for the law of this country that, to the greatest extent possible, such matters should be determined under the provisions of PACE. I welcome the fact that in this Bill, there is progress in that direction.
1470
Above all, the Bill seeks—and, by and large, goes a long way towards achieving—to strike the right balance between the position of individuals and their rights in our society and the need to protect society overall against those who choose violence against innocent individuals rather than democratic methods to achieve their ends.
I believe firmly that the terrorists whom we face wish to undermine our society. Therefore, if we have legislation which is not democratic and not in keeping with the rule of law, that, in a way, helps the terrorists because they then have another grievance which they seek to exploit against us, as I believe happened with internment.
I have received, as have no doubt most Members of the House, letters from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Indeed, along with other colleagues, I had an extremely helpful discussion with the chairman, Professor Brice Dickson. The commission has sent in a submission with its comments on that discussion. It places much weight on its concern about definition and I have a question for the Minister about that. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission believes that Clause 1 should contain within it the concept of a criminal act as one of the qualifying conditions. I believe that that criterion is largely met in Clause 1(1)(a), (b) and (c). But perhaps my noble friend will comment on whether the suggestion of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has any merit or whether that is already covered in the legislation.
The commission is concerned also that we may find ourselves in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and that, when the Human Rights Act becomes effective on 2nd October of this year, we may find difficulties with that. I read carefully the speech made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place and I agree that the Human Rights Act will itself prove to be an important safeguard as to the way that this Bill will operate. But I hope that we shall not find ourselves in breach of the European convention. Again, it would be useful if my noble friend could refer to that.
Before closing, perhaps I may refer to the wider issues of terrorism relating to countries outside the United Kingdom. I remember some years ago, when I had the honour of representing the constituency of Battersea in the other place, an anti-apartheid march came through the constituency. I joined that march happily because I detested apartheid—always did. I was then accused by the Conservative Party in a newsletter of supporting terrorism because I had joined that march. I am bound to say that after a little recourse to the lawyers, it published a handsome apology—with no money changing hands, I might add—it was one I worded, so I suppose it was bound to be a handsome apology. It made me realise that there are difficulties in terms of whether the Bill can distinguish between legitimate political activity and protest concerning other countries and those people who wish to use the United Kingdom as a base for

1471
assisting terrorism in other countries. It is a difficulty and no doubt in Committee we shall consider the problem carefully. It has concerned many of us.
I was inclined to favour the idea of the Attorney-General, rather than the DPP, being responsible for prosecutions in s ach matters, although I suppose there is a counter-argument that the Attorney-General might be more susceptible—not the present Attorney-General—or rather, the Government might be under more pressure from foreign governments than would the DPP. Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that the Attorney-General would be the right person to have that responsibility rather than the DPP.
This is an important Bill which raises many difficult issues. The Government have probably got it just about right, but no doubt we can return to these delicate matters in Committee.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, over the years I have had some encounters with terrorism. As far back as 1982, an amendment of mine to a Northern Ireland Bill was blown away by bombs in the London parks. I later heard the Downing Street mortar bombs exploding. I have had the opportunity to visit men and women convicted of terrorist offences in various prisons; some, I should think completely guilty; some guilty but repentant; some wrongly convicted and since rehabilitated. I have seen also some excellent work by ex-terrorists, sometimes working across the normal sectarian divides. With that background, I welcome the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed, Lord Desai and Lord Dubs, speaking from the Government Benches. I thoroughly agree with what they said about opposition to tyrannical and oppressive regimes in other parts of the world. I can think of one or two other noble Lords who, might conceivably fall foul of the new Bill. They do not happen to have spoken today. There just might be an outside chance of myself falling into the same category.
Rather reluctantly, I accept the need for permanent legislation on this subject in this country. For that reason, the Bill is an important one, whatever particular lesser objections we may have to certain parts of it. I greatly follow what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick about the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and the 1998 Act coming together in the new measure.
My first question is to ask the Government why they did not bring in a much more modest measure which would enable this country to ratify two recent international conventions; namely, those for the suppression of terrorist bombings and for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. I believe that those were the conventions to which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, referred earlier.
If the Government's answer is that in a modern society we are particularly vulnerable to disruption—for example, of computer systems, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, mentioned, or of water or
1472
power supplies—I should like to know why such issues cannot be dealt with under the normal criminal law; if necessary, having amended or strengthened it.
With regard to Northern Ireland and Part VII, I see that the EPA has been given a new life of five years. That is hardly an encouragement to the large majority in Northern Ireland which approved the Belfast agreement by referendum, nor to those still actively seeking positive outcomes to the peace process. I greatly regret that the Bill continues non-jury trials for scheduled offences for another five years. It appears also to do nothing to improve the situation about uncorroborated confession evidence which has, in the past, led to some unsafe convictions, or about the inferences which may be drawn from silence.
I believe that this is a Home Office Bill. I should like to know whether the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were fully consulted on all its details. As regards Parts III, IV and VI, I regret that the burden of proof in showing reasonable excuse is placed so firmly on the shoulders of the defendant. In Part IV, the general power to set up cordons seems far too sweeping. The police services already have considerable powers for protecting diplomats in London and for dealing with armed criminals, wherever they may be. Why cannot those be used for protecting us from potentially armed terrorists?
I question also the need to set up it special appeal commission to look into the appropriateness of actions by the Secretary of State in proscribing or deproscribing organisations. Since the proceedings before the commission will be similar to judicial review, why cannot they be subject to that process with any necessary safeguards that may be needed to protect secret intelligence information? Why do we need the elaborate commission in Schedule 3? Is that perhaps the Home Office simply trying to look liberal?
As for so-called "domestic" terrorism, I am totally opposed to those who burn out or intimidate their neighbours, to those who release dangerous species from laboratories, or who sabotage hunts or destroy legally grown crops. We live in a democracy and those who feel aggrieved on those subjects should use the huge variety of peaceful remedies available to them. But if they take the law into their own hands, why should they be branded as terrorists? Are they any worse than murderers, rapists or torturers?
The criminal law exists to deal with such offenders. It is therefore up to the Government to show beyond any reasonable doubt that the criminal law, plus civil injunctions, are insufficient to deal with wrongdoers, who may happen to be motivated by an ideology or even possibly a religion. I doubt whether that has been shown, and I believe that we deserve a much more modest and less sweeping Bill.
I urge the Government as strongly as I can to take seriously the views of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already mentioned. The Belfast agreement created that body, which builds on work carried out since the 1970s by the Standing Advisory Commission

1473
on Human Rights. The commission is unique of its kind in the United Kingdom. It has pointed out that in another place the Government systematically rejected amendments providing safeguards and reducing the risks of our contravening the European Convention on Human Rights. Why are the Government keeping powers and procedures which will bring international shame and opprobrium on this country, even if they are not used? We have a huge task ahead to improve the Bill and to cut out its worst features.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I apologise for entering into this debate at this time. I shall speak for only a few minutes. I intervene because of remarks made by my noble friends Lord Hardy and Lord Dubs. My noble friend Lord Hardy illustrated feelings in relation to young soldiers who, while serving in Northern Ireland, lost their lives. My noble friend Lord Dubs said that during his tenure in Northern Ireland he met hardly a single individual who had not in some way been affected either by the death or the beating up of relatives.
Most noble Lords will have heard of a book recently published, called Lost Lives, which illustrates in graphic terms the date and the circumstances of every death in Northern Ireland. One has only to read that book to understand that the people of Northern Ireland are far more affected by a debate such as this than those who perhaps have never been to Northern Ireland. My closest friend, Senator Paddy Wilson of the SDLP, was brutally murdered by a loyalist murder gang. Almost every day we read of people who have been knee-capped and brutalised by one or other of the paramilitary organisations.
Over many years, I have sat in this building when similar legislation has been put on the statute book. Today, we have the incongruous situation of this House talking about bringing forward further legislation to deal with terrorists while at the other end of the building a debate is taking place on a report which, if carried into full implementation, would totally decimate the RUC which has been so responsible for bringing terrorists to court. That organisation has lost over 300 men. The lives of the members of that organisation have been dedicated to trying to end terrorism in Northern Ireland, sometimes with little help from the Government of the Republic.
By intimidation and brutal murder the terrorist can succeed in his endeavours. This House knows that a brave and courageous priest, Father Dennis Faul, has spoken out many times in support of the RUC. What has happened to his voice over the past month? It has been absolutely silent because of intimidation by the IRA. The man is frightened because he was a parish priest in Carrickmore, a good republican area, where the people did not like what he was doing in support of the RUC. The IRA has succeeded in silencing his voice.
1474
Today I read a paper saying that in a poll carried out in Northern Ireland, 61 per cent of the Catholic population, the nationalist people, support the RUC. Yet at the other end of this building ways and means of doing away with that force are being debated. It is the only force we have had that has tried to bring terrorism to an end in Northern Ireland. If the Patten proposals are carried into effect, terrorism in Northern Ireland will be greatly helped.
In effect, the Patten report is a result of pushing from the IRA. The terrorists—IRA and loyalist—have gained everything they wanted. One can understand why they did not like the RUC, why they were opposed to the forces of law and order, and why they killed them. They did not like the RUC because it took terrorists to court.
Soon we shall debate the Patten report which will be of crucial importance in our determination to rid Northern Ireland of terrorism.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that 80 per cent of the Patten report is completely non-controversial?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, that is the opinion of the noble Lord.
7.4 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, 32 years ago, as a young Labour Party official, I arranged a meeting at St Ermine's Hotel to allow the National Executive Committee of the party to meet five young men from Northern Ireland. They were John Hume, Austin Curry, Paddy Devlin, Ivan Cooper and Gerry Fitt. Over those 32 years I have always appreciated the deep humanity that motivates all the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in our debates. I suspect, with regret, that when the Patten report is debated in this House we shall find ourselves on different sides of the argument, but let us wait and see.
The Minister started this debate by calling for effective and proportionate legislation. That is the Minister's own test and that should be the test of all sides of the House. The debate is about getting the balance right between sometimes conflicting, but equally important, responsibilities.
There is a clear responsibility on government to offer protection to their citizens from what the Bill terms,
"action which,

(a) involves serious violence against any person or property,

(b) endangers the life of any person, or

(c) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public".

That duty stands alongside defence of the realm as being the first responsibility of any government.
Balance and judgment come in when Parliament has to decide how much power the Government and their executive arms should be given in order to carry out those responsibilities. Of course, this Parliament has

1475
another responsibility: to guard against the accretion of too much power by government in such a way as to imperil the civil rights and human rights of the citizen.
I do not think that I over-flatter your Lordships when I say that I know of no assembly in the western world better equipped to get that balance right. We have among our numbers those who have had the lonely responsibility of fighting terrorism, those who themselves have been the victims of terrorist attack and alongside them sit noble Lords who have robustly defended the human and civil rights of individuals and organisations sometimes in the face of hostile public opinion.
Those who have fought terrorism and those who have defended civil liberties have my utmost respect, for in reality they are different sides of the same coin. Whenever there is a terrorist outrage, one always calls to mind Churchill's famous question during the Blitz, "What kind of people do they think we are?"
I listened to the constituency story of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. One of my most searing experiences as a Member of Parliament was to sit, one Saturday morning over 20 years ago, in my surgery in Stockport and to try to explain to two young squaddies from the Cheshire Regiment why they were in Northern Ireland. They asked the simple question, "Why are we there?" I remember them showing me the card that they had been issued with that set out how they should react if they thought themselves in danger. I remember saying to them that if a dustbin went over in a dark alley when I was on patrol, I would not bother to reach for a card. However, I told them that they were there to save lives and to maintain peace until a political solution could be found to the problems in Northern Ireland.
We ask a lot of our Armed Forces and police when facing a terrorist threat. Their opponents will have no tribunals of inquiry for atrocities committed. There is no appeal to the European Court of Human Rights when a terrorist presses the trigger on an Armalite and carries out an instant sentence of death. Terrorist wars are dirty and unglamorous, and when civil society calls on the Armed Forces, the police and the security services for their protection, we have a duty to provide them with a framework of law that allows them to do their job.
However, that cannot be the end of the matter. In defending our society against the terrorists we must do all in our power to protect the liberties that make our society worth defending. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hardy and Lord Dubs, I remember, coming to this Palace over 30 years ago, when I started work here. There were no gates across Downing Street and there was no security cordon around the front of the building. I feel a twinge of regret as such things represent a victory of a sort for the terrorists. This Palace was open to all. Indeed, when I worked in Downing Street 25 years ago, the main problem for the Prime Minister was trying to get around yet another small boy being photographed on the steps of No. 10 by his proud mother, hoping to emulate the famous photograph of Harold Wilson.
1476
I am not so naive as to believe that increases in security are not necessary in Parliament, in Downing Street, on the airlines or in other public places, but we cannot and must not let our determination to defeat terrorism become the excuse to impose unwarranted restrictions on civil liberties.
We welcome the Bill. We believe that it is an important piece of legislation which should go through the full and considered process of parliamentary scrutiny, unlike some of its predecessors which have been knee-jerk legislative reactions to certain specific terrorist outrages. That was our criticism of the Government's handling of matters after the Omagh bombing in 1998. So our amendments and criticisms in Committee will be based on the notion that this is a necessary piece of legislation, but one that needs the fullest and most detailed scrutiny by this House.
The debate today has highlighted a number of issues. My noble friend Lord Goodhart listed forensically our concerns about human rights. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I know that my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who could not be with us today, hopes to return to the fray when the Bill reaches its Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, reminded us that although terrorism is an old problem, it has spread to the new technologies in the form of "cyber-terrorism", which also shows the need for our legislation to move with the times.
These issues underline our welcome for this opportunity to debate terrorism legislation in a non-crisis phase. We welcome the end of exclusion orders. Furthermore, we welcome the promise of annual reviews. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, we believe that these matters should be discussed in annual debates.
However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on the issue of internment. Having broadened the scope of the legislation, is it really sensible to say that we also need arbitrary powers? Internment is a quick fix, it is not a solution. If terrorism breeds fear, internment breeds resentment. Internment cannot be used for ever; and when internees are released, one still has to deal with them within the rule of law and the political process.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, we welcome the unity of purpose expressed in the Bill in its fight against terrorism; its permanency, although subject to review; the fact that it covers all the elements of terrorism; and that it is national, but deals also with terrorism outside the United Kingdom.
A number of speakers have paid tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The Minister must have been reassured by the noble and learned Lord's opening remark when he said that it was an "impressive I was reassured by his closing remark when he said that his was a "slightly lukewarm" response. Somewhere in the middle of a speech which I believe that all noble Lords should study carefully, the noble and learned Lord listed some of the concerns to which we shall return in Committee and which will bear close examination so that the Bill can be improved.

1477
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out that it is very difficult to define adequately "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" because the judgments are so subjective. I recall flying to Kenya with Jim Callaghan to ask for the help of Jomo Kenyatta when we were dealing with Idi Amin. A decade or so earlier, Jomo Kenyatta had been the leader of one of the most feared and hated terrorist organisations.
I thought that it was typical of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to remind the House that in a civilised society, even terrorists have human rights. However, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, was a little unfair when he accused this country of being the "weakling of Europe" as regards its resistance to terrorism. I do not believe that that comment would go down well with those boys in Stockport or the constituents of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. I believe that through successive governments this country has shown a strong commitment to the defeat of terrorism. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that one of the problems we have had to face in Northern Ireland is that intolerance and extremism have never been the preserve of one side alone. Indeed, I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Miller warn us robustly against the danger of blurring the line between terrorism and legitimate protest. On the subject of robust voices, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, added his own.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, seemed to be urging us down a path that would, in my opinion, escalate violence without adding to security or promoting a political solution. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, demonstrated that this House will show proper concern for human rights. But I was pleased that he, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, associated himself with the opinion that there is no room for what I would describe as the "Bayswater Road patriots"—those who are willing to fight for the freedom of their country only from hundreds or thousands of miles away while living in reasonable comfort and enjoying our freedoms and protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, drew on his experience and made several valuable points about the freedom of the press. We shall certainly return to that matter in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, spoke with a distinctive voice, but one with which I fear that I must profoundly disagree. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made a number of points, but one with which I strongly agree was her comment about "internal housekeeping". That is not something that we should accept in any part of our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, epitomised the sheer sense of duty and commitment I have seen in every Minister who has ever served in the Northern Ireland Office, across all parties. Again, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, to ponder that when he accuses us of being weaklings.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put into perspective from his own experience the question of association with opponents of tyrannical regimes. Again, I put it
1478
to the Minister: we are not going after the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, or my noble friend Lord Avebury in this legislation.
I am afraid that I have before me a list of 10 issues that we are likely to raise in Committee, but I think I shall spare both the Minister and the House a detailed discussion of them. As I said earlier, we seek to raise these points not because we want to wreck the Bill, but because we believe that the best element of the Government's fulfilment of their promise to bring forward this legislation is that, perhaps for the first time, we shall be able to examine anti-terrorism legislation with a cool eye to see what is needed, which rights are infringed, how civil liberties will be protected, and thus get the balance right.
Earlier in my remarks I asked Churchill's question, "What kind of people do they think we are?" I believe that the answer is the same today as it was when Churchill asked that question over half a century ago. We are a tolerant people, jealous of our liberties, proud of our democratic institutions and the rule of law. We can be persuaded and influenced. We have a long history of providing safe havens for those from less tolerant societies. But such characteristics do not come with our mothers' milk. They have to be learnt, one from another and generation to generation. The liberties which underpin them have to be safeguarded with eternal vigilance.
Terrorism will never be completely absent. There will always be those who prefer the bomb or the bullet to the ballot box; that is why we need this legislation. But the terrorists, too, should ponder Churchill's question, because never in our long history have we been coerced or terrorised away from doing our duty. Our duty tonight and in Committee is to produce a Bill which gets the balance right between defeating terrorism and defending our liberties. As I have said, I know of no assembly in the world more fitted to that task.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this has been a lengthy, highly intellectual and wide-ranging debate. My first encounter with terrorism was in 1958 in Cyprus. I saw terrorism again in the 1960s in Borneo. Now I am finishing 30 years of working and living with terrorism in Northern Ireland. Whatever anyone may think or say, terrorism has been with us for many years and, sadly, is part and parcel of life in this universe in the year 2000 and for a long time to come.
I am delighted, therefore, that the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is necessary, and most of what it sets out to do is excellent. Noble Lords from all parts of the House are at least agreed on that. In fact we have agreement on most of the Bill's contents. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, expressed so neatly, that we disagree, but there are areas in the Bill where some of us wish to change the emphasis and correct the balance.
There are serious concerns about the definition. Most noble Lords have discussed that in one way or another. There are also concerns about the extent of

1479
the Bill and the powers that it gives to the police, the judiciary and the executive. In particular, I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in relation to Clause 1(2), I he overseas part of the Bill. To balance that, we should remember that the largest single act of terrorism that has taken place in the United Kingdom was the Lockerbie bomb.
There have been many suggestions for improving the Bill, which it is our job and our duty in this Chamber to do. I do not propose to comment on all the contributions of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, did that extremely well. I should like, however, to make a couple of points.
Terrorism on the cybernet was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford. It is very much with us. I spoke with some colleagues yesterday who are specialists in protecting companies from such acts; it was frightening listening to what they had to say. It needs to be taken very seriously.
The question of human rights will be with us all the way through the Bill. I wish to restate where my party stands. The Conservative Party has never shirked its duty in government or in opposition to take the toughest stand against terrorism and to give the police and Armed Forces the powers they need to protect the public. While our deliberations are going on and while we are trying to balance the Bill, we must not forget that.
We support the Bill. It contains powers which are essential to fight terrorism from wherever it comes. However, there are aspects of the Bill which cause us concern, some of which I have mentioned. They include the decision to transfer the power to grant extensions of detention from the Secretary of State to judicial authority. A number of noble Lords spoke on that, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. We believe that that is not right. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made clear, a Bill of this nature risks running into serious human rights problems. I hope that the Minister is right when he assures us that the Bill will not fall foul of the ECHR.
We accept the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his review of the antiterrorist legislation, that it is common sense to bring the emergency provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act into one piece of permanent United Kingdom legislation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give us more of his expertise in Committee.
The capabilities of the paramilitaries do not need to be mentioned. Everyone in this House knows only too well where those capabilities lie and how fearful they can be. We believe also that parliamentary scrutiny must play a part in this Bill. The provisions it replaces came before Parliament every year. That should not be necessary. However, we are pleased that the Home Secretary has agreed to present to Parliament an annual report on terrorism and on the functioning of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I hope that we will find a way during our discussions of ensuring that both Houses are given an opportunity to debate that report.
1480
We too are not happy with the definition of terrorism as it stands and look forward to discussing in Committee how it might end up. The current definition does not cover adequately the relationship between terror-linked violence and crime. Terrorism is about achieving religious or political ends through fear; through the incitement of terror. That is a balance we must try to reach. We agree with the Government that the time has come to remove the exclusion orders. Their usage has significantly declined and there is clearly no further purpose in them.
We also fully support the Northern Ireland temporary provisions—the so-called "Diplock courts"—as a wholly exceptional arrangement. Along with my noble friend Lord Vivian, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, I agree that, unfortunately, the situation is such in Northern Ireland that those provisions should be retained.
We have had a certain amount of discussion on extensions of detention and where the authority for that should lie. My noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Vivian and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and I feel that the proposal in the Bill to transfer the power to approve applications to extend the length of time a suspect can be held in detention without charge from the Home Secretary or Northern Ireland Secretary to judicial authority is wrong. We remain unconvinced that that is legitimately a judicial function rather than an executive one.
The decision to extend detention under the PTA and the EPA is usually based on intelligence material in the hands of the executive; it cannot be considered appropriate for judicial consideration. I am sure that most of us in this Chamber are well aware that those sorts of decision often depend on sensitive information from intelligence sources that cannot be allowed to go public for fear of risking people's lives and all that follows from that. By giving the power to judicial authorities, the judiciary would inevitably be seen as part of the investigation and prosecution process, which could bring into question the independence of the judiciary.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The trouble, I understand, is that that is what the European Court of Human Rights requires. It requires that, in the event of an extension beyond four days, it must be by judicial rather than ministerial fiat. I believe that that is the problem.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. I look forward to debating the matter with him in Committee—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I may be wrong, but I think that that is the problem.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord.
My noble friend Lord Cope spoke about internment, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. We believe that internment should be brought back into

1481
the Bill in relation only to Northern Ireland. While the Republic of Ireland maintains the right to intern, there is a serious threat to terrorists from a surprise and sudden use of that power. But that weapon in the Republic's armoury is useless unless we also have it in our armoury. In a situation where we reached a peaceful agreement with Sinn Fein/IRA and reinstated the Executive but where we knew that there were two or three dissident groupings, which could perhaps number fewer than 200 in the whole 32 counties, it might just conceivably be thought fit by the governments of both countries to spring an internment and clean up in order to see where we could go.
While the power is there, it makes the life of the would-be terrorist in such a situation considerably more difficult. He could never lay his head on a pillow and feel that he could get a good night's sleep because the security forces on both sides would know all those people—only 200, or so—and they would also know their movements pretty accurately. They would be in a position to lift those people quickly, and the would-be terrorist would be aware of that fact. Therefore, while the Republic of Ireland keeps the right to intern on its statute book, we believe that we should do the same.
In summary, this Bill is about saving lives and protecting the fundamental rights of our society. It is not a Bill that concerns itself with ordinary crime, if I may put it that way. There is undoubtedly a need for a Bill to address the threat of terrorists in this country. Terrorism is no longer confined to the problems of Northern Ireland. I am delighted, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pointed out, that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the Title or, indeed, anywhere in the Bill, other than in Clause 8.
Terrorism is an international phenomenon of a highly sophisticated and intellectual nature. Any country that does not accept that is not doing itself justice. Terrorism is no longer confined to the bomb and the bullet; it now includes chemical attacks on food and crops and serious attacks on the worldwide web. Terrorism is about using terror as a means to achieve political ends. Every civilised country today needs powers to allow it to protect itself against modern terrorism. In principle, we welcome the Bill. But, as my right honourable friend Ann Widdecombe said in another place, we must never be prepared to compromise between democracy and terror.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have rarely been as impressed as I was this afternoon with the quality of a debate about any subject that has been before your Lordships' House. It goes almost without saying that we have had a most insightful, useful, powerful and wide-ranging debate today. Before I respond to particular points raised during the debate—I apologise in advance if I do not cover all of them because very many points were made—perhaps I may take a few moments to make a few general remarks about the Bill.
1482
In bringing forward permanent UK-wide legislation, the Government recognise a responsibility to achieve the balance between protecting the human rights of individual citizens and protecting the public against terrorism. Although that responsibility comes into particularly sharp focus in our consideration of this Bill, it is a balance that must be achieved in respect of all legislation. Concerns have rightly been expressed to the effect that we have not taken sufficient account of human rights issues in the case of this Bill. I understand those concerns and hope that I can allay some of them in my response. The Government certainly take seriously their responsibility to ensure that legislation is consistent with its international and other human rights obligations.
Terrorism is a fundamental threat to human rights. In seeking to use violence and fear instead of democratic means, it strikes at the heart of the foundations of government. In taking care to guard the rights of individuals to a fair trial, to freedom of association and expression, and so on, it is important for us to remember at all times the need to guard the rights of the public to go about their everyday, lawful lives free from the fear of terrorist attack or the paralysing hold that terrorist groups can have over communities.
If there was a big issue for debate this afternoon it was of course the issue encapsulated in Clause 1; namely, the question of definition. We take the view that, in many ways, the definition of "terrorism" is the explanation of the need to have new and fresh legislation. It needs to be modernised; it needs to be brought up to date; and it needs to encompass the changes that have taken place. In particular, the powers in the PTA currently apply only to Irish and international terrorism. We believe this to be inconsistent. As a noble Lord said earlier, a terrorist is a terrorist and the Bill treats all terrorists in the same way.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, struck an interesting and valuable note when he said that we must do our best with the definition. That is very sound and good advice. This afternoon we have had many examples of people who claim that they might be caught by the new definition of terrorism in the Bill. Indeed, a wide-ranging expression of concern has been voiced about the definition. The noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Rogan, and Lord Goodhart, the noble Baronesses, Lady Park and Lady Miller, together with my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Ahmed, all raised concerns in different ways, as did other noble Lords. But this much needs to be said. Our intention is not to catch a latter-day Mandela, a Green activist, a GM-crop protestor or peace protestors or, indeed, those in support of the Kashmiri cause, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ahmed. Similarly, as the Guardian put it, it is not our intention to catch "Swampy" or a Mrs Pankhurst in our embrace under this definition.
Under the Bill, only people involved in terrorism if they use or threaten action that involves "serious violence", endangers life or creates a serious risk to public health or safety will be affected. If they are

1483
charged with offences that depend on the definition of terrorism, it will ultimately be for the courts to decide whether such conditions have been met. Similarly, if they are subjected to police powers that depend on the definition and they bring a complaint, it will be for the courts to decide, the matter. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, made clear, the courts are used to dealing with the concept of "seriousness" which we have put into the definition. However, none of this will happen before the Human Rights Act comes into force. Complainants will not have to depend on the courts as regards the interpretation of "serious violence". They will also be able to rely on their convention rights in the future.
It may be worth me spending a little time going over why it is that we approach the question of definition in this way. We started from the viewpoint that the current definition has done good service but that changes were justified. We are also firmly of the view that it is no longer defensible to confine the legislation to Irish and international terrorism and to exclude the application of the definition to acts connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom.
It is striking that, although there is much debate as to precisely what actions constitute so-called "domestic terrorism", it appears to be generally accepted that some such actions should be caught. In deciding upon a new definition, we obviously also considered carefully the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lard Lloyd. He recommended that so-called "domestic terrorism" should be included and that the threshold should be raised to serious violence. His proposed definition retained the motivational element in defining an act of terrorism, but broadened the list of qualifying motivations from just the political to include religious and social. He also commented that we should try to catch the activities of terrorists who disrupt vital systems without necessarily using violence. While we have not adopted the definition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in every respect, I believe that we have broadly adopted the approach he proposed.
Finally, and most importantly, in working up the new definition, we bore in mind its purpose. The point bears repeating that there is no linked offence of terrorism. Most terrorists, as now, will continue to be charged with offences under the ordinary criminal law. The definition exists to trigger the availability, primarily to the police, of certain additional powers and specific offences that we believe are needed to disrupt and investigate terrorism. While I acknowledge that it would be wrong to make these additional powers available too widely—which is one reason why we have raised the threshold to serious violence—it would be a major error to adopt a definition of terrorism which was too narrow and constrained the police in their actions in fighting terrorism.
One or two specific points emerged with regard to the definition. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked why we had not included within the definition an expression of fear. While we believe that terror is a common by-product, we do not believe that putting
1484
the public in fear is an essential element of what constitutes terrorism. At the end of the day while it is clearly sensible to bear in mind the origin of the word "terrorism", I do not think that should in itself overly influence the definition we propose for the beginning of the 21st century. We certainly think that our definition will catch actions of that kind which cause fear. Threats are also explicitly included within the definition. Therefore we doubt the need for an explicit additional element within our definition of putting the public in fear.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked whether the definition should cover violence against property alone. I understand fully the sensitivities with regard to including serious violence against property. But, in some cases, those involved in such violence try to draw a sharp distinction between violence against people and that solely against property. They go so far as to imply that the latter is in some circumstances morally justifiable. The Government do not think that it would be right to delete the reference to serious violence against property from the definition. I am sure that the whole House would agree that violence against property is never right. Those involved in it are vulnerable to being charged with criminal offences.
But, most importantly, we stand by our view that violence against property can be terrorism. What about the bomb in connection with which a lengthy and accurate warning is given, which, while not endangering life, nevertheless destroys buildings? It does not seem logical that empty targets could be bombed and livelihoods and communities destroyed as a result, but the police would not have at their disposal the powers and offences triggered by the definition of terrorism. We believe that the serious violence against property limb of the definition must be retained to deal with these far from fanciful examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether the definition should cover only criminal acts. On the face of it that may look like an attractive proposition. As we know to our cost, it is hard to imagine terrorist action which is not contrary to the criminal law. After all, terrorism is intended to kill, maim and destroy people's livelihoods. Terrorists are criminals. I hope I may explain to the House why the Government believe that to limit the application of the definition of terrorism to actions contrary to the criminal law will not work.
To begin with, this could be difficult in connection with overseas terrorism. It could mean that the police would be unable to act unless and until they were sure that the action in question was contrary to the criminal law in the relevant country overseas as well as here. By the time the police had made the relevant inquiries, the opportunity to use their powers could be lost. Moreover, there might be cases—perhaps rare—where to limit the definition to actions contrary to the criminal law could leave a gap in the powers. Take, for instance, the case of an employee acting to advance a political, religious or ideological cause who deliberately omitted to perform a certain work-related function which resulted in risking the health of a

1485
section of the public. The employee might, for instance, omit to put a cleansing agent in a sewage plant, or omit to update a vital computer programme, as has already been mentioned. Although many such omissions might be criminal acts, it is far from self-evident that they would be in all cases. For those reasons, we believe that it is not right to limit the definition to criminal acts.
Noble Lords raised many questions to which I now turn. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether the definition might be capable of covering punishment beatings and computer terrorism. We believe that it will cover both those cases. The noble Lord also asked why we should remove the derogation from the ECHR. If I understood him rightly, I believe that the noble Lord advocates the retention of ministerial detention. That point was made several times by the Benches opposite.
The Government take a contrary view. We strongly believe that matters relating to the liberty of the individual should be put in the hands of the judiciary. I do not agree that whether to have the derogation is entirely a matter of choice. A member state may derogate and maintain a derogation only when there is an emergency which threatens life and the nation. We certainly support the need for the derogation at this time. However, the Bill and the Good Friday agreement anticipate that it will be possible to bring Northern Ireland in line with the UK-wide antiterrorism regime. I certainly hope that that will occur sooner rather than later. I ask the noble Lord to consider carefully on what basis he believes that the derogation could be maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and other noble Lords made the argument for internment. He suggested that it should feature in the Bill. The Government's position on internment is clear. We remain to be convinced that internment could play an effective role in our overall security policy. The noble Lord referred to the retention of executive detention powers in the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps it would be helpful to place on record the words of the Prime Minister during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which was introduced after the Omagh atrocity. The Prime Minister said,
"We had to make a judgment about internment. We have made it clear that we do not rule anything out for ever. But my judgment is that the history of internment as it operates here and in the Irish Republic is different".
The Prime Minister went on to say,
"All the way through we are trying to tackle carefully targeted measures that allow us to deal with these terrorist groups but do not provoke such a backlash in other parts of the community that they undermine the right we are trying to secure".
That remains our position. We rule nothing out for ever but I strongly believe that reintroducing internment powers at this time would be a retrograde step. Part of the aim of this Bill is to bring Northern Ireland into line with the anti-terrorist regime in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that internment runs contrary to that aim.
1486
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also said that computers and the Internet are important in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, echoed that sentiment. I am happy to give your Lordships' House an assurance that the Government fully agree with the importance of tackling cyber crime, including, in the context of today's Bill, cyber terrorism. Acts that are illegal offline are illegal online. A number of the offences in the Bill could be committed using electronic communications. Indeed, some of them, such as those mentioned in Clauses 54 and 58, have been drafted with just such media of communication in mind. Computer hacking which creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public is covered by the definition of terrorism in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether consultations have been completed with Scotland and Wales. Terrorism is, of course, a reserved matter, but I can confirm that we have drawn the legislation to the attention of the Scottish and Welsh executives and detailed consultations have taken place at official level. These consultations will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked why, in a sense, we had downgraded the level of consent required from Attorney-General to DPP. It is the case that the offences in the PTA and EPA are currently subject to Attorney-General consent. But in preparing the legislation we reviewed whether it was necessary to retain that level of consent. We decided that it was not. It is important that Attorney-General consent is reserved for the most sensitive and serious cases of all and that the number of categories of case he has to consider personally is kept to a manageable level so that he is able to give sufficient attention to all of them. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that. On balance we decided that while it is important to retain a consent to prosecution mechanism for most offences in the Bill it was not necessary for that consent to remain at Attorney-General level.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made a very valuable and powerful contribution to the debate. Speaking on behalf of the Government I thank him for his kind words, particularly at the outset, although perhaps less so at the conclusion. Nevertheless, I believe that he will help us tremendously with this difficult piece of legislation.
I wish to respond to his point about adding international groups to the proscribed list. The Bill provides for the first time a power to proscribe organisations concerned in any form of terrorism, including international terrorism. That is one of the ways in which the Bill demonstrates our commitment to change the climate in which the supporters of terrorism seek to operate in this country. The United Kingdom has no intention of becoming a safe haven or a weakling state, which is one comment I recall, for international terrorists and their supporters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has observed that Schedule 2 contains only the names of those organisations currently proscribed.

1487
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the statement in paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes. It reads,
"The Government is considering which organisations involved in international terrorism might be added to the Schedule".
I do not believe that it would be sensible to announce new candidates for proscription now and give the groups advance warning. An initial list of proposals for the proscription of international groups will be drawn up over the next few months. Final decisions as to the contents of the first draft order adding international terrorist organisations will not be made until the power to make that order is actually in force. It will then be possible to take proper account of all the circumstances obtaining at that particular time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked whether the fundraising offences in Part III are meant to apply to fundraising for proscribed organisations. I am happy to confirm that that is the case and it is the intention of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord asked a longer and more complicated question as to why there was no offence of being concerned in terrorism as he proposed. I have a long explanation. I shall try briefly to work through it without boring your Lordships at great length. It is an important explanation. The noble and learned Lord proposed an offence of terrorism at least partly because, I believe, of his concern that the arrest power under the Bill would not otherwise be compliant with Article 5(1)(c) of the ECHR. The Government take a different view. In Brogan v. the United Kingdom (1988), the Government argued successfully that it was not necessary to have arrested someone under the PTA arrest power in connection with a specific offence to be compliant with Article 5(1)(c) of the convention. At that time the Government argued that the way in which the arrest power was formulated in terms of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism was compatible with the concept of an offence. The court accepted that submission and went on to say,
"The arrest and subsequent detention of the applicants were based on a reasonable suspicion of an offence within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c)".
While the Government recognise that no particular case can settle an ECHR point for all time and that the court underlined that the particular circumstances of the Brogan case influenced its decision, the Government continue to be of the view that the terrorist arrest power without an explicit link to a specific offence is compatible with the ECHR and Article 5(1)(c) in particular. It was on that basis that Section 19(1)(a) of the human rights certificate was signed. Therefore, it follows that we do not agree that it is necessary to create an individual offence of being involved in terrorism.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, also proposed that there should be a list of offences with which terrorists are commonly charged. The Government are not convinced by that approach as we believe that potentially it could glamorise terrorist crime as being somehow different and perhaps in some way superior. It is our view and that of successive
1488
governments that terrorists are first and foremost criminals and that the offences with which they are charged should reflect that.
I turn now to the general points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. She argued that we should review the legislation regularly, especially the proscription powers, and that we should try to avoid blurring the lines between protest and terrorism. I understand and entirely agree with the second point, but as regards the first, we have come to the firmly held view that the time has come to move to permanent legislation, recognising the fact that terrorism is here to stay, as I said during my opening contribution, and for the foreseeable future. But the legislation will make provision for an annual review of its operation. I believe that will provide a sufficiently robust check. I believe it is a provision that will be widely welcomed.
The noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Fitt, both raised issues relating to the Northern Ireland provisions and also the Patten report. I entirely agree that provisions for Northern Ireland are needed at this time. But I have no doubt that the entire House hopes that the security situation will allow the extra measures to be removed as soon as possible. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the Patten recommendations are not within my field of responsibility. However, the Government agree the Patten analysis that the implementation of some recommendations will depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops. However, we shall not act recklessly or jeopardise the lives of the police or those in the wider community.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, asked a question about UK ratification of the UN convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism. I advise the noble Lord that the United Kingdom signed that convention on 10th January of this year. The Bill includes provision aimed at enabling the UK to ratify the convention and the terrorist bombing consultation in the same way that the UK has ratified all the UN conventions in the field of counter-terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to concerns being raised by the society of editors. I advise your Lordships that I, too, have read those concerns. I know that my honourable friend Charles Clarke in another place has had some important discussions and consultations with them. They are particularly concerned about the offence in Clause 58, which is a point which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made. We are aware of these concerns. We have had discussions and the specific points that they raised on certain provisions are matters to which we may return at later stages.
We believe that the Bill already provides sufficient safeguards for journalists. I take the point that the noble Lord made during his contribution as to how important it is for the Government to be in a listening mode. It is certainly my intention that throughout these proceedings we shall listen very carefully indeed to points that are made to us, particularly with regard to the press.

1489
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised an interesting issue concerning the provision of cross-border security co-operation. Again, strictly speaking that is not within the terms of this legislation. However, I can assure him that the British and Irish Governments have been co-operating and will continue to co-operate on security matters. That has been demonstrated by the co-operation between the RUC and the Garda and the success that the latter organisation has had against dissident republican terrorists on a number of occasions.
Finally, I wish to reflect on some questions that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised during the course of his comments. He kindly gave us advance notice of them. He asked whether it was correct that there had been no prosecutions under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. There have not been any prosecutions, which is something I believe the noble Lord already knew. The Bill removes these provisions in Great Britain, but retains them in the part of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland, which is only temporary.
We must not forget the reasons for the powers being enacted. They were designed in the wake of the Omagh atrocity. Although I take the advice offered by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others about acting in haste, the powers are there for a particular purpose. It may well be that they had a value in the past and will be valuable in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about measures to ratify the finance and bombing conventions. I have probably already covered those in my comments and observations. The noble Lord also asked whether we had consulted fully with the Northern Ireland Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the detail. I can confirm that that is the case.
As to his question about whether proscription and deproscription can be dealt with by judicial review, this is a fundamental point which has led us to go down the route of an independent commission with a special advocate type of procedure, rather than providing for cases to be heard by the ordinary courts where sensitive material is likely to be at the heart of many of the cases heard. We believe that the creation of the POAC strikes the right balance, ensuring fair and ECHR-compliant proceedings protecting sensitive material.
As to the noble Lord's final point, we shall take careful account of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, particularly in regard to the concerns it has raised directly with us.
I apologise for my long response, but this is one of the most important pieces of legislation before your Lordships' House and we should reflect on that importance. Terrorism is a uniquely cowardly and barbaric crime. The Bill responds to the continuing need for specific powers to combat current and future threats from all kinds of terrorism. It also ensures that the UK takes a tough line against the global terrorist threat. It provides a new legal framework to deal with
1490
terrorism in a way which is consistent with our human rights obligations. We believe that it gets the balance right in protecting individual rights and the community.
This has been an important and valuable debate. There is much work to be done at Committee stage. I take very seriously the points raised in today's debate and I look forward to the contributions that noble Lords will make during the passage of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Deanrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order will enable the Government to ratify the Convention on the Establishment of the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, which the Government provisionally accepted on 9th September 1998. The draft order is made under the International Organisations Act 1968 and will give effect in United Kingdom law to the privileges and immunities granted by the convention. The privileges and immunities granted are necessary for the organisation, its staff and experts, as well as the representatives of member states, to carry out their functions. In accordance with Section 1(6)(a) of the International Organisations Act 1968, the privileges and immunities conferred by the draft order are no greater in extent than those required by the convention or those authorised by the Act. The headquarters of the organisation are in Bonn, Germany. The organisation currently employs around 30 staff, including five British nationals.
The Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation is known by its French acronym, OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation en Matière d'Armement). It was launched in November 1996 as a defence procurement collaboration between the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy. In joining this work, the United Kingdom aimed to participate in setting up a body which, in the words of one of my illustrious predecessor as Minister responsible for defence procurement,
"added value not bureaucracy; one which will lead to more efficient and effective collaborative ventures than those seen to date, producing equipment which can compete with the best in the world".

1491
In 1998, the Strategic Defence Review confirmed the potential benefits of improved collaboration and that OCCAR had a part to play in achieving this.
Formal status for OCCAR will allow the organisation to place and manage contracts in its own name and to employ its own staff. This should lead to the development of a range of skills and techniques based on international best practice, thereby eliminating the need to "reinvent the wheel" each time nations embark on new collaborative ventures.
All four member states signed the OCCAR convention at the Farnborough Air Show on 9th September 1998. The text was published and presented to Parliament as Command Paper 4367 in June 1999. The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence has examined the development of OCCAR and the implications of the convention. The committee's report was published on 6th December 1999 and recommended that, subject to certain provisos which will be met, the convention should be ratified. The report concluded that the House should give its approval to the present order to allow for United Kingdom ratification.
The convention is open to other European states; and the Netherlands and Belgium have already indicated their interest in becoming partners in due course. It sets out, among other things, the founding principles, general organisation and the objectives of OCCAR. Two key aims (in Article 5) are a strengthening of the competitiveness of European defence technology and its industrial base, together with a renunciation of traditional trade-balancing policies allowing increased competition in collaborative procurement. An important commitment (in Article 6) is that each member state is obliged to give preference to equipment in the development of which it has participated within OCCAR when meeting the requirements of its armed forces. But improving the effectiveness of project management in collaborative projects is the prime objective, as Article 7 makes clear. OCCAR's principal tasks in the management and co-ordination of such projects are set out in more detail in Article 8 of the convention.
All four member states have agreed that OCCAR shall have a legal personality and that OCCAR, its staff and experts, as well as the representatives of its member states, shall enjoy the privileges and immunities set out in Annexe Ito the convention. The privileges and immunities to be accorded are similar to those accorded to other international organisations—there are 33 international organisations based in the United Kingdoin—and are necessary for us to conform with our international obligations. Reciprocal privileges and immunities orders have been passed, or are being passed, in France, Germany and Italy.
I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this modest and non-controversial order. I commend the order to the House.
1492
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing what we, too, see as a non-controversial order.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we are discussing not how the Organisation Conjointe de Cooperation en Matière d'Armement—or, as it is known, by yet another acronym for our vocabularies, OCCAR—will operate, but rather the immunities and privileges that are granted to international organisations on a purely practical basis to allow them effectively to fulfil their functions. This includes the preservation of their independence of action. An international organisation should not be subject to any form of leverage by the host nation. The key aims seem eminently sensible.
Can the Minister tell us if the reciprocal orders have already been passed by the parliaments in the other countries concerned? Does the order differ substantially from those passed to cover other diplomatic organisations? How soon after today does the Minister expect the order to come into force?
I know that this is not a privileges and immunities parking Bill, as the Minister said in the other place. But can the Minister tell the House whether the order covers any other accidents? It does seem to refer, in Part II, Article 6(1)(b), solely to accidents caused by a motor vehicle.
It is a shame that OCCAR is based in Bonn in Germany rather than in London. As with the siting of the United Nations, it was said that it would have been sited in the United Kingdom had we been more generous in providing free Scotch whisky to its members. Sadly, we lost the UN to another country. Since we see how Brussels and indeed Belgium have benefited from the presence of both NATO and the European Union, can the Minister comment on whether there are any other areas where we might encourage and attract more international organisations to locate their operations in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's final point, I am delighted that she, speaking on behalf of her party, would wish to attract European and other organisations to the United Kingdom. I must tell her very gently that the agreement for the headquarters to be sited in Bonn rather than in London was reached by our predecessors in office. As the noble Baroness will know, this organisation began its life under my predecessor. The words I quoted were those of James Arbuthnot MP. Agreement was reached at that time that the organisation would be sited in Bonn. However, I am delighted to think that on future occasions we shall enjoy the support of the noble Baroness's party in siting European organisations in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

1493
I am happy that the noble Baroness is able to agree that this is a non-controversial order. Reciprocal legislation is being passed in the other three countries concerned. It is probable that Italy will be the last country to go through its necessary legislative procedures. After we have gone through ours, this will become the law of the land once it has gone through the necessary procedures at the Privy Council, which should be at the end of this month. The procedures go from your Lordships' House to the Privy Council. Once they have gone through the Privy Council, they will have completed their legislative round in the United Kingdom. However, we have to have the confirmation of all four countries, including Italy, which still has to go through its legislative procedures.
The noble Baroness asked about the parking provisions. As she will know—
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, not the parking provisions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. She asked about the other immunities. She will know that the privileges and immunities granted are similar to those set out in other orders relating to international organisations. Different immunities are granted for different people within the organisation. For example, the director of OCCAR will enjoy the same kind of privileges and immunities as a diplomat. The noble Baroness asked about other accidents. She might find it helpful if I write to her and give her a full list, including not only the director but the other individuals on the staff of OCCAR and the representatives who might be visiting each other's countries. It is a very long list and one which I am sure the noble Baroness would find interesting. However, I feel that it would probably be trespassing on your Lordships' patience if I were to go through it in detail now. If the noble Baroness is content with those arrangements, I shall of course place a copy of my letter to her in the Library of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Equality (Disability, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2000
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order will introduce provisions broadly in line with those that will apply in Great Britain under the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The main purpose of the order is to give the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland power to enforce
1494
disability rights in Northern Ireland similar to those that will be available to the Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain under the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. The establishment of a Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain is a major advance for people with disabilities and is the result of many years of hard work and campaigning by the disability movement in general. It fulfils a major part of our manifesto commitment to secure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights. We accept, however, that more still needs to be done. The Disability Rights Task Force's report from Exclusion to Inclusion makes recommendations on the wider issues. Northern Ireland departments are considering how these can be taken forward.
Unlike the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Disability Rights Commission Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. We had hoped that the new Northern Ireland Assembly would have been able to progress the necessary legislation. Unfortunately, that has not happened and we have therefore moved quickly to produce this order to ensure that people with disabilities in Northern Ireland have the same rights as people with disabilities in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The provisions of the order, apart from some miscellaneous amendments in Part III, are basically the same as comparable provisions in the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. Briefly, therefore, the order makes provision for the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to work towards the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities; promote the equalisation of opportunities for people with disabilities; take steps to encourage good practice in the treatment of people with disabilities; keep the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 under review; assist by offering advice and support in taking cases forward; provide information and advice to employers and service providers; undertake formal investigations; prepare statutory codes of practice providing practical guidance on how to comply with the law; and arrange independent conciliation between service providers and people with disabilities in the area of access to goods and services.
The other minor miscellaneous amendments relate to the functions and procedures of the equality commission. These provisions do not create any new powers or duties but either clarify existing arrangements or carry forward powers which were inadvertently removed by recent legislation.
The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 was a significant step towards full civil rights for people with disabilities in England, Scotland and Wales. Similarly this order is no less significant for people with disabilities in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the order and for doing so in such a sensitive manner. We on these Benches welcome the legislation as it ensures that disabled people in Northern Ireland will have similar rights to those of us in the rest of the United Kingdom. Here I pay tribute to my right honourable friend William Hague for taking the Disability Discrimination Bill through another place during his time as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. The Acts of 1995 and 1999 were important milestones and we are anxious to see this order on the statute book so that the people of Northern Ireland may share similar benefits.
However, there are three questions that I should like to ask. First, Article 1(2) states:
"Part II shall come into operation on such day or days as the Office of the First Minister … may … appoint".
At the present time, as we accept with sadness, there is no Executive. If there has not been a restoration at the time the order comes into effect, will the authority rest with the Secretary of State? And if that is the case, should the order not say so?
Secondly, on 29th October last year, the Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, said that he would be listening to representations made by the members of the commission concerning the level of resources and staff. He offered them all encouragement, which is very important. However, will the Minister assure the House that she is satisfied that the commission has adequate funding for its needs? That is of particular importance in the Province, as it appears that a higher proportion—I understand that it is 17 per cent—of people in Northern Ireland suffer from some form of disability.
Finally, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the commission will not be over-stretched in its efforts to work against racial, sex, employment and disability discrimination, given that the first three tasks were formerly carried out by separate bodies in Northern Ireland? In the rest of the United Kingdom there are distinct organisations to monitor racial, disability and sex discrimination.
The order will assist both disabled people and businesses in Northern Ireland and we wish it well as it marks yet another milestone.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we, too, welcome the order. Its effect will be to ensure that disabled people in Northern Ireland have access to a disability rights enforcement body in the same way as people living in Great Britain. That is very much to be welcomed. We regret that circumstances mean that the measure comes before this House as an order instead of continuing, as it began, as a Bill before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I have just two queries on the contents of the order. Both relate to Article 4(2). Under that provision,
"The Commissior may … make proposals or give other advice to any government department".
1496
Does "government department" include a department of the United Kingdom Government operating in Northern Ireland as well as a department of the Northern Ireland government? Secondly, in Article 2(b),
"The Commission may … make proposals or give other advice to any public authority as to the practical application of any law".
"Public authority" is defined as having the same meaning as in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As I understand it, that excludes from classification as a public authority the police and institutes of further and higher education. Therefore, will the Minister explain why that definition of "public authority" has been chosen rather than one of the wider definitions that are available in other statutes, which would have enabled the commission to give advice, for example, to the police?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by thanking both speakers for their involvement, their comments and their welcome for the order. We are grateful for that. I am pleased to bring forward this legislation, fulfilling the commitment given to people with disabilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred to Article 1(2) of the order. The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is a Northern Ireland department. It has responsibility for equality policies, including disability discrimination legislation. The function of making a Northern Ireland statutory rule—a commencement order is a statutory rule—is normally carried out by a senior civil servant. The commencement order for the Equality (Disability, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 will, therefore, be made by a civil servant acting on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's query.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of staffing and the related issue of staff training. The commission is presently arranging for disability awareness training for all staff and detailed disability training for front line staff. The commission has agreed a starting structure to deal with disability issues. Job descriptions of the responsibilities of the team and individual members of staff are being prepared for consultation with the trade union side. It is proposed to recruit 20 additional staff. A director of disability will take up post on 1st May. The commission will advertise for staff as soon as possible. It is its intention to ensure that initial services are provided; namely, advice, the handling of casework, policy work and work with the media.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of funding. We estimate that the commission's running costs budget in relation to its disability remit will be around £1 million per year. We have looked at the estimated

1497
costs for the Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain, together with the costs for the former Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland and the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland, and we have taken into account factors such as that raised by the noble Baroness of the higher levels of people with disability in Northern Ireland in arriving at that figure. We are content that necessary resources will be made available to enable the commission to undertake its disability functions effectively. The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be keeping the matter under review to ensure that the single organisation will prove fully effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the definition of "public authority". The forthcoming Patten legislation is expected to apply Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the police in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asked also whether the government department includes a UK department operating in Northern Ireland. The order does include all government departments operating in Northern Ireland.
1498
This is an extremely important piece of legislation. We believe that it will make a real difference to the lives of people with disability in Northern Ireland by ensuring that they are able to contribute to our economy and society. It builds on the work referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, with regard to her right honourable friend William Hague and the work of this Government in building further on that. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, how can there be an Office of the First Minister when there is no First Minister?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am advised that this is the terminology that applies in defining the department within the existing legislation, and that within that legislation the point raised by the noble Baroness is covered. If, however, the noble Lord has any further concerns, I shall be delighted to write to him. It is a complex legal question to do with the use of language.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half past eight o'clock.

  Field Margins and Hedges: IACS Rules
  Field Margins and Hedges: IACS Rules
  Government Departments: External Consultancy Costs
  Government Departments: External Consultancy Costs
  Passenger Information: Provision by Carriers
  Passenger Information: Provision by Carriers
  Bingo Charges
  Bingo Charges
  Asylum Seekers: Costs to Public Funds
  Asylum Seekers: Costs to Public Funds
  Prisoners: Education Costs
  Prisoners: Education Costs
  UNLOCK: Prison Service Payments
  UNLOCK: Prison Service Payments
  Prison Service Website: Hits
  Prison Service Website: Hits
  Grammar and Comprehensive Schools: GCSE/GNVQ Performance Comparisons
  Grammar and Comprehensive Schools: GCSE/GNVQ Performance Comparisons
  Millennium Volunteers Programme: Chairmanship
  Millennium Volunteers Programme: Chairmanship