Sitting of 3 July 2000

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

    Missile Defence System
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What recent representations he has received on the proposed US national missile defence system and its effects on the UK. [127255]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We have received a number of representations recently on the proposed US national missile defence system. The United States President has not yet decided whether to begin deployment of the proposed system. We would not expect a request for the use of facilities in the United Kingdom until after any such decision has been made. We have made it clear that we would consider such a request carefully in the light of circumstances at the time, including the implications for the defence of the UK.
    Mr. Corbyn: May I ask the Secretary of State to cast his mind back to May, when the five declared nuclear
    2
    powers—all of whom are permanent members of the Security Council—stated as their long-term aim the global elimination of nuclear weapons and total disarmament? Does he not think that the American proposal for a national missile defence system, with outlying stations based in the Pacific ocean and the UK, is not only an escalation of the danger of nuclear conflict, but flies in the face of the non-proliferation treaty? Instead of waiting for what President Clinton may or may not decide on Friday, on the basis of whatever tests are going forward, should we not say—here and now—that we shall have no part in any global extension of nuclear weapons or nuclear missile defence systems, but that we shall work wholeheartedly for worldwide nuclear disarmament? Does he not think that the proposed siting at Fylingdales in Yorkshire turns this country, once again, into a nuclear aircraft carrier for the US?
    Mr. Hoon: No, he does not. My hon. Friend is getting rather ahead of events. As yet, there is no US proposal as such. The US has not taken a decision and has not made any formal request to the UK. In those circumstances, I do not need to answer his question about Fylingdales.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman clear about the nature of the long-term threats that motivated the US Congress to pass its national missile defence Act? Does he consider that such threats might apply also to this country and to Europe? Is he aware that the technological and aerospace committee of the Western European Union, together with his hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and myself, is visiting the US in two weeks' time precisely to investigate those issues and to report back to the Assembly?
    Mr. Hoon: The UK recognises US concerns about the threat—specifically that posed in the short term by North Korea. That is why there is a differential reaction in Europe. Inevitably, North Korea could not threaten Europe in the short term. Our current assessment is that there is no significant threat to the UK from weapons of

    3
    mass destruction. However, I must emphasise that we continue to monitor developments closely. Obviously, we must have regard to the protection of UK interests should such a threat emerge.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State really believe that there is a serious threat to Seattle from North Korea, when North Korea has trouble with the missiles it has targeted on South Korea? At this time of rapprochement, does that not mean that what is going on is not a perceived threat, but the perceived greed of the American defence industry, which wants to make more profits from a new arms race which will impoverish the planet even more and put us in great danger? The Secretary of State said that he had received no formal approach from the US. What approaches has he received?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept the way in which my hon. Friend puts his question. It is not for the UK to make assessments of the degree of threat perceived by the US, but there is a widespread recognition that North Korea is developing a capability that would undoubtedly pose a threat to the US. As for our position, it remains that we do not identify a current threat to the UK. However, it is important both that we monitor the situation and that we ensure that the UK's interests are properly protected.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State—I hope that he will accept that remark in the spirit in which it was meant. On one side of him are the US Government and his own Ministry of Defence, who tell him that there is a serious threat and a need to show some leadership on the matter because of the threat from rogue states. On the other side are his own Foreign Office, led by the two CND supremos, his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), and the French Government who are utterly opposed to the proposal. Now we hear that most of his Back Benchers give him no support either. Do we not have the right to expect Her Majesty's Government to show some leadership in this matter—as they would traditionally have done—and to make up their minds? Instead of that, they twist and turn, leaving us with one simple policy, Mr. Micawber's view—they hope something will turn up.
    Mr. Hoon: I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would take as a criticism the statement that he represented the majority of Labour Back Benchers. Let me make it clear that the Government continue to monitor carefully developments of the situation. As yet, there have been no specific or formal requests from the US. There is no division of opinion in the Government on our approach to such matters. It is vital that we should give support to the US, if necessary, while recognising—as the US has done—that it is for the international community to decide on these matters and to make its views known to the US before any decision is taken to deploy.

    European Defence
    Ms Dari Taylor: What progress has been made since the Helsinki summit in improving European defence co-operation. [127256]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The package of measures endorsed by EU leaders at the recent Feira summit marks further practical progress on the European defence policy. In particular, we have successfully taken forward the commitment to improving European capabilities made at Helsinki, and agreed proposals to develop a close European Union-NATO relationship which recognises the key role of European allies that are not members of the EU.
    Ms Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent statements made by Strobe Talbott, a member of the Senate Defence Committee? He said that
    the US is for ESDI.
    Does my right hon. Friend, like me, also take comfort from the words of Lord Hurd of Westwell, a former Conservative Foreign Secretary? He said:
    I believe that the Government are right, with the French, to try to encourage our fellow Europeans to act together in humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks. I do not see that enterprise as a challenge or rival to NATO.
    Will my right hon. Friend state once again in the House that the European security and defence identity does not threaten or undermine the relationships that we have with the United States and that it does not in any way, shape or form alter the fact, the operation or the continuance of NATO?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have great difficulty in understanding why the Opposition persist in decrying this development because any sensible commentator—my hon. Friend has mentioned some—undoubtedly recognises that strengthening the Europeans' contribution to NATO means that NATO itself will be stronger. I do not understand why Opposition Members have difficulty with that concept unless it has something to do with their knee-jerk opposition these days to anything to do with the European Union. In case it does, may I remind them of at least part of their policy? The European democrat group, of which the Conservative party is a member, has said:
    We want to have a defence policy in Europe…If we talk about European defence and if we put it into the Treaties then we must be able to fill it out and give it substance so we can have a capability available.
    Even the Conservative party does not seem quite sure what its policy is these days.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that any European defence identity will proceed on the basis of an intergovernmental and not a supranational legal basis?
    Mr. Hoon: Yes, I can give that assurance. I assume that, as a former member of the European democrat group, the hon. Lady will approve of the policy that the Government have set out.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: How many British troops are deployed in Sierra Leone. [127258]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): More than 300 UK military personnel are currently deployed on the ground in Sierra Leone. These include members of the short-term training team, lead elements of the UK-led international military advisory and training team, support and protection elements, the British military liaison officer, and members of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone and of the Department for International Development-sponsored Sierra Leone security sector reform project. In addition, HMS Argyll and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sir Percivale have crews totalling some 240 personnel.
    Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. May I express the appreciation of my constituents—some of whom have relatives in Sierra Leone and others have simply expressed concern about the situation there—for the role that our troops have been playing? Will he advise the House what progress is being made to deal with the illegal diamond trade which is perceived by many as fuelling the civil war?
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
    Mr. Hoon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his offer of help.
    Britain wants international action to curb the illicit trade in conflict diamonds to be proceeded with as a matter of urgency. A new Security Council resolution on Sierra Leone provides a significant opportunity to focus the international community on addressing the problem and exploring measures to tackle it. Britain is certainly proposing ideas to prevent RUF access to Sierra Leone diamonds and the diamond markets, and to help the development of a regulated and sustainable diamond industry in Sierra Leone.

    Surplus Assets
    Ms Christine Russell: What progress is being made in achieving the target for disposal of surplus assets contained in the strategic defence review. [127259]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the past two financial years, more than £400 million has been realised from the sale of surplus property assets. We are fully on course to achieve the £700 million target for gross receipts which is set out in the strategic defence review. The Defence Logistics Organisation was set a target to reduce the book value of spares holdings by some 20 per cent., and is on target to meet that by 2001.
    Ms Russell: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and congratulate the MOD on achieving its target. May I further congratulate my right hon. Friend on the estates strategy that has recently been published? My constituency has a long military history and therefore significant MOD assets. I noted a strong commitment to sustainability in the strategy. The MOD has announced—I have no criticism of it—that it intends to dispose of Saighton camp on the rural fringe of my constituency. I therefore seek an assurance that it will conduct a full
    6
    environmental impact assessment, as promised in the strategy, and consult local planning authorities prior to the disposal of that asset.
    Mr. Hoon: I was about to say that I suspect—but I know that my hon. Friend knows a good deal more about the site than I do. None the less, I shall certainly ensure that the case is looked at and will write to her in due course. I hope to be able to give her the answer that she seeks.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not it a rather fragile and inadequate basis for the Secretary of State's budget to depend to such an extent on windfalls from surplus assets? Does he understand that there is great sympathy for him in the House as he prepares, once again, to repel the predatory swoop of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the comprehensive spending review? Indeed, there is some sympathy for him in the House owing to the fact that briefing against him appears to have started already in this morning's national newspapers. Will he insist in the comprehensive spending review on a settlement that allows the MOD a proper budget, and one that does not rely on speculative returns from surplus assets?
    Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to describe asset sales as windfalls. All Departments—the MOD is no exception—must concentrate their activity on areas that they require, whether for training of people or testing of equipment. It is crucial that we retain only those assets that we need at any given time. Therefore, there is a vigorous programme of selling assets, as it is clearly important that land and sites are used for proper purposes rather than remaining redundant as part of our property portfolio. I disagree with him profoundly when he talks of the sale of such assets as windfalls. They are assets that the country can use more effectively than merely leaving them idle on the books of the MOD or any other Department.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Will the comprehensive spending review, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred, consider the successor identification friend or foe system, and if it does, as I suspect it will, will there be sufficient funding for it from my right hon. Friend's Department? My constituency, Raytheon and RAF Sealand want to help my right hon. Friend and offer their services on the contract—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are getting quite a way from the original question. I shall try Sir Michael Spicer, who I hope will return to it.
    Sir Michael Spicer: One organisation that seems to be coming quite close to being surplus to requirements in the Government's mind is the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. In the light of the Select Committee's report on DERA and its importance to Anglo-American relations particularly, will the Government reconsider their position on it?
    Mr. Hoon: The Government have put out a further consultation paper in relation to the proposed sale of DERA. The hon. Gentleman refers to Anglo-American

    7
    concerns; I assume that what he really means is anxieties in the United States. If he checks the situation carefully, he will find that the United States is content with the latest proposals, so that criticism does not arise. I have studied carefully and discussed with members of the Select Committee their reservations about the proposals. Clearly, we will take that into account before any final decisions are taken.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State with regard to the disposal of surplus land and buildings. Will he give an assurance that if there are opportunities to dispose of those in a way that is economically helpful to those communities, he will not stand by the last penny that he can get by holding out, but that he will co-operate with other Departments for the general benefit of those communities?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that I may not stand by the last penny, but I shall certainly stand by the last £100 million.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome the progress announced by my right hon. Friend in the disposal of surplus assets. Instead of the cash value, can he tell the House how many housing units have been released and how many acres of land have been disposed of by his Department?
    Mr. Hoon: As my hon. Friend knows, the great majority of houses in the possession of the Ministry of Defence are owned by a private company, from which we lease them—a decision taken by the previous Government. We have 63,000 families quarters, but some 53,000 of those are leased from a commercial company. The remainder are owned, and we have a further 20,700 houses in our overseas garrisons, so there is a considerable amount of property. We review it carefully and, as I said earlier, we ensure that we retain only the property that the country needs at any given time.

    Army Exercises
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the Medicine Man exercises which will take place this year at the British Army training unit, Suffield. [127260]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Normally, five Medicine Man exercises at battle group level are conducted at BATUS in Canada each year. This year, however, there is only one standard Medicine Man; two have been cancelled because the units originally earmarked are committed to operations in the Balkans, and the final two exercises are being combined into Exercise Iron Hawk. That will be a brigade level exercise and will involve 3,200 soldiers from the lead reconnaissance taskforce and the lead aviation taskforce. It is an exciting development and will be the first time that helicopters have exercised at BATUS on such a scale. It will be an excellent opportunity for the troops involved to operate at that level.
    Mr. Gray: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the 250 permanent staff whom we have in the training
    8
    facility in Canada, which is larger than all the British Army's other training areas put together—a superb facility for training in high-intensity warfare? The Minister speaks about Iron Hawk. Was that not put together at the last minute, to cover up the fact that of the five full battle group exercises that are normally allowed in BATUS, only one can be carried out this year, for two reasons: first, because of overstretch, as the Minister correctly mentions—we simply do not have the troops to go there to take part in an exercise—and secondly, because of budgetary cuts? Is that not a disgraceful waste of one of the finest assets that the British Army has?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has got that quite wrong. Does he think that we should not contribute troops to the international effort in Kosovo and Bosnia? The moneys allocated for Medicine Man 2 and 3 have been put into Medicine Man 4 and 5, which have been combined into a brigade level exercise. That is an enhancement of capability, a better kind of training and, if successful, could well be the template for the future. It is an interesting and successful story, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to draw it to the attention of the House.
    Mr. Robert Key: That was a remarkable display of smoke and mirrors. The fact of the matter is that training at BATUS in Canada has been cut, which is bad news when we need to train for high-intensity warfare. Does the Minister recall that the Royal Marines cancelled their winter exercises in Norway? Has he noticed that only a handful of units have had time for biological and chemical defence training? Does he recall that HMS Westminster was pulled off an exercise and sent to enhance the millennium party on the Thames? Is he aware that in the spearhead battalions of the rapid reaction corps, only one in seven Lynx helicopters is fit to fly, and the pilots are queuing up for one-hour trips round the bay to keep their hands in? The Minister must stop the downward spiral. What does he intend to do—cut commitments or increase defence spending?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman excels himself. He referred to Lynx helicopters. Let us be clear that there is a technical problem with rotor heads. I suspect that those rotor heads were probably ordered under a previous Conservative Administration. However, armies, air forces and, indeed, airline companies face such inevitable problems.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned a Royal Marines exercise in Norway. I went there, and several hundred troops were engaged in the exercise, notably the Royal Logistic Corps, which provided the logistics for the majority of the exercise, and the Air Force. The Royal Marines had been detached to other duties. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that we were rather busy last year. We have been engaged in several operations.
    Once again, we have to return to the core question: if Conservative Members keep returning to the Dispatch Box to make points about overstretch, they should tell us what commitments they would cut.

    Troop Deployments
    Mr. John Bercow: How many Army personnel are deployed overseas. [127261]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Some 32,600 regular Army personnel, including Gurkhas, are currently serving overseas.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he accept that the infantry are currently 1,600 men under authorised strength, that the shortages are almost entirely in the lower ranks and that the regular battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, which is currently 134 men under strength, is worst affected? Has it occurred to the Minister that the crisis in manpower and morale is the direct result of his folly in expecting more from less?
    Mr. Spellar: Last year marked a 10-year high in recruitment. The figure for this year is slightly less, but remains extremely good. There are difficulties in retention, and it is surprising that recruitment is so good when unemployment is at a 20-year low. There is traditionally a direct correlation between recruitment and unemployment levels. It is a tribute to our recruiters that they have been able to maintain high recruitment.
    There has been an increase in pre-sifting recruits and in sending them for fitness training so that they are better able to undertake training. That is good, because more trained strength is resulting from recruitment, and fewer are falling by the wayside during the recruitment process.
    We do not underestimate the impact of many of the difficulties that we inherited, not least housing, which was mentioned earlier. It is a particular grievance of families, and we must address it. We have spent tens of millions of pounds in trying to tackle it. It is a major difficulty, which has an impact on retention. We have been engaged with the Families Federation on the matter. I have reported several times that, through the service families taskforce, we have dealt with many other difficulties that face service families in their engagement with other Government agencies. We have also consulted other Departments and made something happen.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When our armed forces are deployed overseas, what are the rules of engagement when they, perhaps inadvertently, have an interface with outfits such as Sandline and Executive Outcomes? Are there strict instructions about the way in which they should respond and whether they should collaborate? The matter worries many hon. Members as a consequence of the Sierra Leone problems. Those problems also apply to other parts of the world. What instructions are given to our armed forces personnel?
    Mr. Spellar: I am not aware that Sandline is operating in Sierra Leone, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the existence of private operations. If our forces are engaged in an operation in support of a Government, they are instructed to report any discussion that arises regarding any private operation. Of course, there is a question about an individual Government's right to engage personnel in support of their own operations which, inevitably, relates to the sovereignty of that country. Our forces are under clear instructions that, should they encounter such groups in any way, they should report that, although, as I said, I have no evidence that Sandline or any other group is operating in Sierra Leone.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Will the Minister confirm that the overstretch on the Royal Engineers and Royal Signals in relation to their tour cycle is even greater than that on the infantry? Will he confirm that wastage is so bad that the Army is now at its smallest since the Crimean war? Where, in the list of items that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), does he fit the £11 million cut in married quarters repairs, the horrendous state of our single persons' accommodation and a string of penny-pinching savings, which go right down to failing to repair the Royal Engineers' gym at Chatham so that it cannot be used for fitness training?
    Mr. Spellar: I assume that the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the last Parliament when, as I recall, many of the problems that we inherited were building up. I will exonerate him a little as he made a bit of a fight about married quarters, although he buckled at the last minute in the face of the reaction from his Government. However, single living accommodation in particular is an ongoing problem and we are clear that we need to address it fully.
    I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about numbers in the Royal Signals. He will accept that there has been an explosion in the telecommunications industry outside but, unfortunately, that industry does not see fit to train enough people for its own requirements and is actively recruiting from our extremely well-trained telephone and communications experts in the Royal Signals. That is a tribute to the training that we give but, unfortunately, adds considerable pressure which, of course, is why we are putting a lot of emphasis on the Royal Signals' reserve component. I take the hon. Gentleman's point: we are putting considerable work into the matter, including, as he will know from his constituency area, training Gurkhas in the Signals' role.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State knows that retention is one of the key problems in overstretch, and that morale is a key feature of that. When troops are deployed overseas with their rifles, they ask how they will be supported. Will the Minister therefore explain simply why, when the Government undertook the upgrade programme, they did not insist that it went to the UK, rather than Germany? Was it because the Secretary of State said that he did not care about metal bashing in the UK?
    Mr. Spellar: That is a sort of urban myth that the Opposition are trying to propagate—[Interruption.] It is not true. The question concerns the capability of BAE Systems and its ability to undertake that work. We had to consider its capability in Germany compared, unfortunately, with its declining capability in the UK which has been a long-standing position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main capability, even at Nottingham, was in large systems, rather than rifles.
    The hon. Gentleman should really look at how the Conservative Government let that capability run down over the years in which they were in office. If Conservative Members thought that there was a problem with the SA80 which should have been dealt with earlier

    11
    after the Gulf war, they should have instigated that. However, it is yet another problem that they left us when we came to power.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That is utter nonsense. The Minister should go and talk to the Nottingham facility which believes that it can clearly undertake that work. He is therefore not telling the whole story. Does he not realise that, if what he says is the case, and we lose small arms production in the UK and cannot support such production, our service men will look round and see that their gloves are made in eastern Europe, their combat clothing in Belgium and their boots in Spain and Brazil? They will therefore be able to ask legitimately whether the trading standards officer might not arrive at the door of the Secretary of State one day and say that, under trade descriptions, the British Army should no longer be called British?
    Mr. Spellar: What a slur that is on all the British soldiers, who are very much British. About 83 per cent. of clothing orders go to British firms. There have been some headline stories about production going abroad, but actually, a considerable amount of production, of clothing and textiles, for example, has taken place in this country. At the same time, a number of British firms specialising in defence clothing and equipment are securing orders from elsewhere in Europe, under the European procedures.
    We are governed by value for money and the European procedures, but we are working with British industry to ensure that wherever possible, it gets the contracts. The success of that policy, ultimately, is shown by the fact that Britain is still a major exporter of defence equipment—it was second in the world last year—and sells to a number of areas.
    The hon. Gentleman must say whether he wants to go back to fortress Britain, or to engage successfully in the international defence equipment market. There is a case for looking carefully at whether we are getting fair trading conditions from other countries, and where we are not, for looking extremely closely at orders relating to those countries—but the matter is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman tries to present it.

    Aircraft Weaponry
    Mr. John Randall: Which RAF aircraft are armed with cannon; and if he will make a statement. [127262]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Cannon are carried on Jaguar, Tornado and Royal Navy Sea Harrier aircraft. They can also be fitted to Hawk aircraft for training purposes.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he share my dismay at the decision not to equip the Eurofighter with the Mauser cannon? Has he spoken to RAF pilots about that decision, and if so, what was their response?
    Mr. Spellar: May I point out that a number of our other aircraft do not have cannon either? I draw the
    12
    hon. Gentleman's attention to the letter in The Daily Telegraph from Air Vice-Marshal Nicholl, who I presume knows something about aircraft. He wrote:
    It is for that reason that I, not ministers, recommended to the MoD's most senior management group that we put no further effort into the gun.
    The role of air-to-air combat aircraft depends on short, medium and long-range missiles. Therefore, cannon are not now an appropriate weapon for such aircraft, which are not for close combat over the channel. The reason is in the world of technology. Cannon have an impact, particularly on the fatigue life of aircraft.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: In talking about close combat, the Minister is trying to bamboozle the House. He knows perfectly well that in recent years cannon have been effective against helicopters, for ground strafing, and, occasionally, against ships. Do the Government not realise that when other European countries that have ordered the Typhoon are taking delivery of it with cannon as planned, and when the United States is fitting a cannon to its latest generation combat aircraft, the F22, and would not dream of doing otherwise, the Government are making a total fool of themselves and of this country by trying to pretend that the RAF will be better off without cannon on the nose of its Typhoon, which instead has a lump of metal as a counterweight?
    Mr. Spellar: I think that the hon. Gentleman, who managed to keep just below the excitability level today, gave it away when he talked about ground strafing. This is a very capable air-to-air combat aircraft. That is its role. If we wish to attack targets on the ground, not only do we have a number of other aircraft, we also have the extremely capable Apache.
    The hon. Gentleman needs to look at what role the aircraft will have and what advice we took from technical experts in the RAF, who saw that, with increasing capability, and with the distances involved, modern missiles are the key weaponry for that aircraft. Indeed, there is a good argument that says that if a pilot were close enough to be able to line up the cannon, he would have to be head-on to the other craft, which would be detrimental to the evasion tactics and the anti-missile technology that he would want to use. It is all very well for all the amateur technologists on the Conservative Benches to make those comments. We have asked the people who know about the subject, and that is their advice.

    Naval Funding
    Mr. Nigel Evans: How much funding his Department has allocated to naval operations this year. [127263]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Responsibility for routine operations lies with the Commander-in-Chief Fleet. His cash budget is some £1.1 billion this year. Additionally, the Second Sea Lord and the Defence Logistics Organisation, which are funded separately, provide support and maintenance to the fleet.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for that response but—without blaming the previous Government, as this Government have been in power for three long

    13
    years—can he say something, if not apologise, for the fact that the Navy has had to borrow submarines from Turkey and Germany for training purposes because it has insufficient submarines for its own needs, and that sailors at the HMS Cambridge gunnery school have been told that to save money, instead of firing live rounds when practising, they should shout "Bang!" into a microphone? That may be the Secretary of State's idea of megaphone diplomacy, but what does he believe it does for the morale of our sailors and our Navy?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman needs to get serious. He will know that such training exercises have always been conducted in that way at the very lowest levels in the armed forces. Raising such matters in that way simply cheapens his party's attitude to them. If he complains that such activities are the result of cuts, let me make it clear that his party was responsible for cutting the Navy over a long period from the mid-1980s onwards. The annual budget for the Ministry of Defence was cut each year from 1995–96 to 1997. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about cuts in the Navy, he should know that his party halved the number of destroyers and frigates, and cut Navy numbers by some 27,000 in that period; given that history, he should not make too many complaints.
    Instead, this country's shipbuilding industry can now look forward to the largest programme of new warship construction since the second world war. We plan to procure two new aircraft carriers. We are investing in new type 45 destroyers, new submarines, new ro-ro ferries and new amphibious shipping. We have just ordered two new survey vessels for the Royal Navy—an order that will be worth £130 million for the Appledore shipyard in Devon. That is a programme to be proud of, unlike the series of cuts over which he and his party long presided.
    Ms Rachel Squire: With regard to naval operations support, will my right hon. Friend confirm that regular discussions take place with defence manufacturers not only on ship maintenance, refitting and repair facilities, but on promoting defence diversification? Given the job losses that were announced at Rosyth dockyard on Friday—a direct result of the previous Government's decision to remove submarine work from Rosyth—will he reassure my constituents about the Government's commitment to maintaining ship repair and refitting facilities, and promoting defence diversification, in areas still heavily dependent on defence work?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured way in which she asked her question. Certainly, the Government are concerned about the redundancies that have taken place. They are not connected with any work to consider the problem of overcapacity in warship maintenance and support; that is a matter for Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd.—the owner of Rosyth dockyard. I understand that its announcement reflects its determination to improve efficiency and restructure its operation, but the Government certainly maintain their commitment to warship refitting, and we want to maintain in an efficient way the facilities that we have available. The key for the future of Rosyth lies in establishing its position as a fully competitive surface shipyard.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Secretary of State give a similar assurance that Fleet
    14
    Support Ltd. in Portsmouth dockyard will maintain its share of naval repair and maintenance work? Also, if the headquarters of naval operations, at Northwood, is to close and may move to Portsmouth, will some of the savings go into putting more and better crewed ships at sea and providing more operational time?
    Mr. Hoon: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise assurance that he requests, because clearly those are commercial matters involving private sector companies, which have to ensure that they are efficient and effective, and secure the work that provides appropriate levels of employment for their employees. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the level of work presently available will continue. Indeed, with the programme that the Government anticipate, I expect there to be work in the long term. However, that depends on each yard being efficient and commercially able to attract the kind of work that it needs to secure employment for its employees.

    Former Prisoners of War
    Mr. David Winnick: When he will make a statement on compensation for former British prisoners of war held by the Japanese. [127264]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As I explained to my hon. Friend during the debate on 6 June, we expect to make a decision soon on the matter of further compensation for former British prisoners of war held by the Japanese.
    Mr. Winnick: In view of what the Prime Minister has already told the House, can we expect that statement before the House rises for the summer recess? Bearing in mind the terrible brutality that prisoners held by the Japanese suffered, and the fact that 25 per cent. of them never returned, does my hon. Friend accept that there is much support, both in the House and in the country, for adequate compensation? I hope that a favourable decision will be made very shortly. Let us follow what the Canadians have done.
    Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend knows from several debates and questions on the subject, the Government fully recognise the bravery of those who were held as prisoners of war in the far east, and elsewhere, during the second world war and in subsequent conflicts. From meetings with the Royal British Legion, the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, he also knows of our great sympathy for their suffering and that of their families. From previous replies, he is aware that the matter is still under consideration by the Government. No conclusions have yet been reached, and we are therefore unable to give a date on which an announcement will be made.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Does the Minister accept that this is a matter not of money but of honour, and of giving recognition to people who made sacrifices and endured ordeals that we cannot begin to imagine? That takes time, granted—but surely too much time has already passed. How can the Government say no?
    Mr. Spellar: At this stage I can only reiterate what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North

    15
    (Mr. Winnick): those matters are still under consideration and no decision has yet been made. We hope to make an announcement soon, but I cannot put a time on that at the moment.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister accept that the prisoners of the Japanese are in a separate category because they were the subject of war crimes? I am reading the autobiography of Mr. Bill Griffiths, who while a prisoner of the Japanese was subjected to a war crime that cost him both his eyes and both his hands. How does the Minister think Mr. Griffiths feels about the compensation culture in this country, which pays out huge awards to people whose feelings have been hurt by careless remarks made at work, to service women who have become pregnant and cannot fulfil their duties, and to policemen who suffer stress caused by doing their duty? How do the far east prisoners feel when such payouts are made for situations that do not begin to compare with what they suffered?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes, I fully understand those sentiments. However, I should point out that many of the circumstances have existed for much of the time since 1955, when a previous Conservative Government decided not to proceed further. I should also point out that the Conservative party was in power for 18 years and chose not to make a decision. These are difficult issues—[Interruption.] It ill behoves Conservative Front Benchers who were Members of the House in that period, and did nothing, to shout out. These are complicated issues, which is why the discussions between Departments are taking some time—but we still hope to make an announcement soon.

    Defence Medical Services
    Dr. Brian Iddon: How many extra personnel the Government aim to recruit to the defence medical services over the next three years. [127265]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We aim to recruit some 3,300 regular personnel into the defence medical services over the current financial year and the next two financial years. However, recruiting targets are dynamic and could be subject to change. The figure of 3,300 includes all trades and specialties within the medical and dental fields, and covers recruiting into training, as well as direct-entry qualified personnel.
    Dr. Iddon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that by contrast, the Conservative Government had planned a massive £600 million cut in the defence medical services budget? Does that not illustrate their attitude towards not only the defence budget but the national health service? I say that because I am aware of the enormous amount of work carried out for the NHS by defence medical services staff in peacetime.
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. The real tragedy of the notorious defence costs study 15, which slashed the defence medical services, is that the long training times required for medical specialties mean that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to retrieve the situation, particularly when the
    16
    demand for health services elsewhere in the country is rising. I am pleased to say that in several areas, the number of people undergoing medical training has increased, and we shall work with the NHS in that regard.
    There is also the question of reserve forces and reserve medical services. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has had a meeting with his opposite number in the Department of Health to ensure maximum co-operation between the NHS and the defence medical services, both regular and reserve.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: It is easy for the Minister of State to say what he hopes for, but what are the facts? What has been the effect on recruitment and retention of the proposed closure of the only tri-service military hospital, at Haslar hospital in my constituency? Can he confirm or deny that that decision was so serious that our forces' ability to deploy overseas is now seriously constrained by a shortage of medical staff?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware—he certainly should be from the number of parliamentary answers that I have given him on the subject—that the closure of Haslar was driven mainly by the difficulties in retaining training accreditation from the various royal colleges in their specialties, precisely because of the level and variety of throughput. Indeed, that has been the experience of other separate medical hospitals, including those that have now gone into national health service hospitals. I have spoken to the staff who have made that transfer and they say that, although in the medical units within the hospitals the work is harder, it is more fulfilling and professionally much more satisfying. That reflects the judgment of the medical colleges, from which we were in danger of steadily losing accreditation because of the level of throughput.
    As I have told the House a number of times, many small hospitals face that problem, and it has affected those medical hospitals. Not only have those changes been welcomed, but there has been considerable interest in, and welcome for, the centre for defence medicine, based at Birmingham university, which will also provide an excellent facility.
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: May I welcome my hon. Friend's statement? He will know of the vital and valued service provided by royal naval hospital staff at Plymouth Derriford. He will also probably know of the recent announcement that there is to be a new medical school, the Peninsula medical school, based in Plymouth and Exeter. Can he confirm that the co-operation with the NHS that he was talking about will extend to working with that new medical school? The extra investment will mean that 100 of the 1,000 extra doctors in training in the NHS will be trained in Plymouth and Exeter.
    Mr. Spellar: I welcome not only that, but the expansion into East Anglia, which is another area that has not traditionally had a medical training facility. That is good news for the country because of the extra number of medics, and it is good news for those areas. There has also been an expansion into the black country, based on Birmingham university. Again, that means medical training in areas that had not previously experienced its benefits, and we shall work with the health service in that regard.

    17
    When I was at Derriford a few months ago, I talked to our people on the naval side, and to people in the hospital administration. They were keen to have the medical training facility, and to work with our naval people in a combined operation. There were some initial teething troubles, but the two systems began to mesh, and they are now working extremely well, to the mutual benefit both of the people of Plymouth and of the Royal Navy. I am sure that that will be true in other centres as well.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: What the current strength is of the Territorial Army. [127266]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The latest available official figures give the total strength of the Territorial Army as 43,334.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister accept that if there is to be a recruitment campaign for the Territorial Army, he must first deal with the severe morale and retention problems that have devastated the TA because of the misjudged cuts that the Government have made?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to know that I do not accept that analysis. I repeat the fact that we reoriented the focus of the Territorial Army away from the cold war features, which were primarily intended to provide reinforcement in a conflict in central Germany and to protect key installations in this country. We wanted to move to territorial, or, indeed, reserve forces. Reference is always made to the TA, but there has been an increase in Navy, Air Force and Marines reserves. We wanted to reorient the TA, in particular, as a force that is usable and used, and that is what we have been successfully undertaking.
    We have visited several TA units that are working on that programme. They do not fit the picture of low morale that the hon. Gentleman describes, although I fully accept that there has been concern and dissatisfaction on the infantry side in some areas, and we are working with those units to repair that situation. The hon. Gentleman should consider the other side of the picture, in which a number of support services are getting new equipment, and morale is good.

    Naval Procurement
    Mr. David Heath: What progress he has made in the procurement of (a) new aircraft carriers and (b) future carrier-borne aircraft. [127268]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Competitive assessment contracts to develop
    18
    design options for the future aircraft carrier, each worth up to £30 million, were awarded in November 1999 to BAE Systems and Thomson-CSF Naval Systems. The carriers will form the principal platform for the joint Royal Navy and RAF future carrier-borne aircraft and the future organic airborne early warning system. We are assessing options for the FCBA and a decision is planned for later this year. We are in the early stages of discussions with industry on the early warning system.
    Mr. Heath: Given the vital importance of the aircraft carriers to the future expeditionary policy, and given that the two procurement programmes go together, the platform must be designed for the aircraft and the aircraft must be designed for the platform. What is the time scale for the future carrier-borne aircraft? No one wants a bodged last-minute "marinisation" of an aircraft designed for land-based use.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is necessary to consider both the decisions together. Although two teams are considering the two issues separately, they work closely together. The three designs under consideration for the two aircraft carriers reflect the three types of aircraft that could be embarked on the carriers. As this work is complex and depends on ensuring that both decisions proceed in parallel and complement each other, the assessment phase will be complete in 2003, when bids for the demonstration and manufacture phase will be delivered. That will inform a decision by Ministers in late 2003, with contract placement for the carriers planned for 2004.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will full consideration be given to Eurofighter, especially a Fleet Air Arm version, which would not only provide jobs in the north-west but give a further role to a much needed aircraft?
    Mr. Hoon: Certainly a version of the Eurofighter is one of the candidates.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Her Majesty's Government have already put funds into the joint strike fighter. Given the need for transatlantic defence co-operation and the huge market for the aeroplane in the United States armed forces, as well as, potentially, in our own, is it not important for the Government to take advantage of the investment that has already been made?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are a number of other options, including two versions of the joint strike fighter. They will certainly be strong contenders.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. James Clappison: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from a Minister in the Foreign Office to be allowed to give the Government's response to the recent news of the conviction of 10 members of the Jewish community in Shiraz, Iran, and of their sentencing to terms of imprisonment of between five and 13 years, following a trial that was widely accepted to have violated the principles of justice—not least the principle of open justice? Such a statement would also give the Government an opportunity to say whether they share the deep concern expressed today by President Clinton.
Madam Speaker: I have received no notification that a Minister is seeking to make a statement today.

Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.31 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's policy of giving prisoners special early release on the Home Detention Curfew scheme; deplores the fact that more than 20,000 convicted criminals, including thousands of drug dealers and traffickers, robbers, burglars and violent offenders, have been released from prison under the scheme before serving even half the sentences they were given by the courts; regrets that child sex offenders and others have been released on the scheme before serving the minimum period required by law and contrary to the explicit assurances given to the House by Ministers; notes the contradiction between the recent comments of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister's spokesman that violent criminals should serve longer prison sentences and the Government's policy that has resulted in the special early release of thousands of violent criminals on the scheme; calls on the Home Secretary to act on his word and end the release of robbers and other violent criminals on the scheme immediately; calls for the scheme to be abolished completely; and calls on the Home Secretary urgently to clarify the Government's prisons policy.
  For all their rhetoric, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have not shown the toughness on crime that they promised to show. The more desperate they get, the bigger fools they make of themselves; but the electorate, at least, can no longer be fooled. The facts are that police numbers have fallen by more than 2,300 since the Government came to power, the number of constables has gone down, and crime—especially violent crime—is on the rise once more, after the substantial falls brought about during the last Parliament.
  One of the Government's responses to a rising crime rate is to resort to gimmicks, such as the Prime Minister's announcement of £100 spot fines, which senior police officers are queueing up to describe in the media as ludicrous and ridiculous. This was the usual exercise of headlines and spin, reannouncements of old policy, and gimmicks designed to grab a cheap headline. I am sure that the Prime Minister hopes that the fines will not go the way of his other gimmicks, such as the child curfew orders. After 20 months, we are still waiting for one to be used.
  On this occasion, the Prime Minister has made an utter fool of himself. He has solemnly proposed that a policeman should approach a drunken yob and demand a £100 fine. When said drunken yob has managed to straighten himself enough to explain that he does not have £100 on him, the policeman—according to the Prime Minister—will accompany him to a cash dispenser, where he will in his drunken state instantly recall his PIN and solemnly produce his bank card, then withdraw £100 and give it to the officer. If that is the best that the Prime Minister can manage in the face of rising crime, it is pathetic.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend include in her criticism of the

  21
  Prime Minister the point that that is manifestly incompatible with the European convention on human rights, which the Home Secretary recently incorporated into our law?
  Miss Widdecombe: The Prime Minister, however, does not concern himself with details like that. He just wanted a quick headline. He just wanted to say something that sounded tough, regardless of whether he could implement it—never consulting the police, never asking whether the measure was practical and never testing his proposal. He just wanted a "Let's sound tough" headline, which has rebounded thoroughly and deservedly on him.
  The Home Secretary will probably be relieved that we are not debating those fines today. Opposition Members would love to do so, but I am afraid that they had not been announced when we tabled the motion, so we are going to debate another of the Government's responses: letting more and more prisoners out of jail earlier and earlier.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: As the right hon. Lady knows, I do not always agree with her. However, on that general issue, and before she moves on to address the specific issue of this debate, let me ask her a question. Is she aware that the Prime Minister's announcement to the academics of Tübingen—who might not have been overly interested in that particular bit of ethical, theological or international political reflection—was made without information on it being passed to the Home Office? On Friday, the Home Office said that it knew nothing about the proposal, and, therefore, could not comment on it.
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not think that I want to intrude on the private grief of this very unjoined-up Government—let us spare them any more blushes. I notice, however, that no Labour Members have jumped up to defend that ludicrous policy and that ludicrous announcement. They have failed to do so because, of course, they have absolutely no defence. Even those who are in places that we cannot see are falling apart laughing.
  The far more dangerous policy, which we should be discussing now, is that of prisoners coming out of jail early. The Home Secretary's special early release scheme has seen more than 20,000 convicted criminals released before serving even half the sentence that they were given in court. Of course, it is likely that the up-to-date figure is substantially higher than that—I would estimate that it is probably about 23,000—but I am unable to say that certainly because, so far, there has been no answer to the parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), although he tabled it for answer two weeks ago.
  Those who have been released on the scheme may be so-called short-term prisoners, but they are definitely not minor criminals. They are criminals guilty of some of the very worst crimes, such as manslaughter, attempted murder, drug dealing, violent assaults, robbery and burglary. They have been given the "get out of jail free" card by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Criminals sentenced by the courts to six months are getting out of jail in just six weeks-tough on crime, indeed.
  Opposition Members completely support the use of electronic tagging, but not as a substitute for serving the right jail sentence. Indeed, we pioneered tags in the face
  22
  of opposition from Labour Members. What we do not support is the Government's decision to hide behind tagging to let tens of thousands of criminals out of prison before they have served even half the sentence handed down by the courts. We have made that crystal clear from day 1.
  When the Home Secretary first announced that ludicrous policy, in November 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said:
  Today, we have seen a significant shift in this country's penal policy…when this bit of the crime and disorder Bill comes before the House, we will resist it—[Official Report, 20 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 456.]
  And we did.
  When the Bill came before the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said:
  We oppose the early release of prisoners under the scheme.
  He also said that
  what the Government are doing is wrong—[Official Report, 23 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 925–28.]
  Therefore, the Home Secretary's previous attempts to portray this as a policy supported by the Opposition are every bit as bogus as his fiddled pledge on police numbers.
  Today's debate is all the more relevant in the light of the recent comments of both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister's spokesman. During the policing of London debate, 10 days ago, the Home Secretary told the House:
  We want to send a clear message to violent criminals that they can expect the stiffest penalties if they commit robberies or other street crimes.—[Official Report, 23 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 560.]
  The Home Secretary told the House that he could see no justification for the over-lenient sentences being imposed for robbery in the Crown court. However, he knows very well that he himself has let hundreds of robbers out of prison before serving even half their sentence. What is the point of condemning the courts for over-lenient sentences when, by his personal decree, even those that they give are not served?
  When I called on the Home Secretary, in the light of his comments, to stop letting robbers out on his special early-release scheme, he wrote to me saying that his "tough stance on robbers" was not inconsistent with continuing to allow them to serve less than half their jail terms. He said that he saw
  no justification for the automatic exclusion of robbers
  from the special early-release arrangements. Indeed, he tried to justify his policy by arguing that he was not really releasing serious robbers—only minor robbers.
  The Home Secretary wrote that
  the average sentence length of the convicted robbers placed on home detention curfew was just over two years, which is well below the current average of three years. Without detracting at all from the seriousness of each individual crime. I think you will nonetheless agree that this gives an indication of the relative seriousness with which the courts regarded each of the offences in question.
  However much the Home Secretary tries to wriggle out of the situation that he has created, he has palpably failed to ensure that robbers have faced the stiffest penalties. Some 811 convicted robbers were released on his scheme up to 30 April this year. The average sentence given to them by the courts was 26 months. The average sentence

  23
  served was just 11 months. Far from ensuring stiffer penalties, that is ensuring lighter penalties. The courts are not to blame—he is to blame.
  The Home Secretary has made it clear, with considerable effrontery, that the policy will continue. On Thursday, The Sun—a splendid paper, which appeared to have been briefed extensively by the Prime Minister's spin doctors—reported:
  New figures show that there are 4,000 "vacancies" in Britain's jails.
  No doubt the Home Secretary will explain exactly to the House what these new figures are. If there are 4,000 vacancies and if the Prime Minister really is so committed to seeing violent and serious criminals locked up, why not use half of those spaces for the 2,000 criminals who, even as we speak, are on special early release?
  Are there indeed 4,000 spaces? Why are there 4,000 spaces? Where are the 4,000 spaces? I was surprised when I read that story and I will give the Home Secretary every opportunity to tell us whether it was a mistake. Does he want to correct it from the Dispatch Box now? Apparently not.
  A spokesman was reported as saying:
  There is a growing problem with violence in Britain. The Prime Minister is convinced there is only one way to deal with it and that is to send the message that those responsible will be caught and put away for long periods. There is no excuse for dealing with the situation in any other way.
  Perhaps the Prime Minister's office might like to have a word with the Home Secretary's office, because that has not been the Government's policy up to now. I was under the impression that the Government's thinking on prison sentences was summed up by the words of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who said:
  We should not make a totem of the length of time spent in prison.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 June 1998; c. 697.]
  No doubt the Prime Minister's spokesman will be seeking an early opportunity to have a quiet word with the Under-Secretary and hear his excuses.
  The Government's actions in releasing thousands of violent criminals early fly in the face of the Prime Minister's personal promises and those of his Ministers. Perhaps the Prime Minister—who promised in his manifesto to support the police—took time today to explain to the chief constables attending his so-called crime summit exactly why his Government have allowed out more than 100 criminals convicted of assaulting police officers on his special early release scheme, and why he ordered Labour Members to troop into the Lobby on 12 July to support that policy and to vote against the Opposition's amendment to stop it? Perhaps he will now order them to present themselves within seven days at their local police stations to explain their actions. That was yet another kick in the teeth from the Labour Government for the men and women of our police service.
  Did the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), tell the chief constables why, after he called over the new year for dangerous drivers who killed to be locked up for life, the Government have allowed more than 100 of them to serve
  24
  less than half their sentences? Perhaps the Prime Minister—who promised to fight the drugs menace—told the chief constables why thousands of drugs dealers and traffickers have been let out of jail on special early release. Or did the Home Secretary explain why, when the Government have in recent days promised—yet again—to crack down on violence and yobbery, hundreds of violent yobs, convicted of affray and even violent disorder, have also been let out early on the special early release scheme?
  The Government's prisons policy is a shambles. Far from being tough on crime, they have let out more than 20,000 convicted criminals to the comfort of their own homes. We even heard yesterday of one prisoner being let out on the scheme having been tagged on his wooden leg. He substituted the tagged leg for another false leg and went out drinking until all hours. Home Office business as usual. Dozens of criminals have been tagged and let out early, and have disappeared completely.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In this lighter mood, does my right hon. Friend think that the new haircut being sported by the Minister of State is part of the Government's attempt to acclimatise society to what we can expect when more and more people are released early?
  Miss Widdecombe: I had better let the Minister speak for himself on that score. The hairstyles of Members on both sides of the House have recently come in for some comment.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend referred to drugs. Given that—quite apart from statements by the Prime Minister—the Labour manifesto promised a battle against drugs and gave a commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in our communities, is it not a particular disgrace that no fewer than 2,767 drug dealers have been let out early on the Government's ridiculous scheme?
  Miss Widdecombe: It is a disgrace, and it is proof positive of the utter cynicism that the Government bring to the serious subject of maintaining law and order.
  Other aspects of the problem deserve the House's attention. Despite the so-called vacancies in our prisons, and despite the early release of thousands of prisoners, which is the Home Secretary's response to a rising prison population, conditions in our prisons are not improving. Despite the valiant efforts of the Prison Service, overcrowding is up, with an increase in the percentage of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one. If the Home Secretary could give them to me, I would be grateful for the numbers sharing three to a cell designed for two, because they are not up to date. Slopping out has reappeared in some of our prisons.
  The rate of purposeful activity has declined significantly from more than 26 hours five years ago to around 23 hours today. If one puts criminals in prison, a proper effort must be made to rehabilitate them, or the result is more crime and another sentence. The Government's policy appears to be fewer purposeful hours and earlier and earlier releases. One wonders why the Home Secretary puts people in prison at all.
  Distressingly, suicides in our prisons have also increased, alarmingly so—from 59 in 1995 to 91 in the last calendar year. During the debate on the Criminal

  25
  Justice and Court Services Bill on 12 June, the Minister of State said that the early release scheme
  has had a highly successful performance record in the 16 months since its implementation.—[Official Report, 12 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 659.]
  However, more than 700 further crimes, which include rapes, burglaries, assaults, threats to kill and drug dealing, have been committed by prisoners released on the scheme while they should still have been in jail. Is that a highly successful implementation? It does not say much for the Government's much-vaunted risk assessment or for the chief inspector's analysis that the scheme works because we can monitor what the released prisoners are doing. No. We can monitor where they are—not what they are doing.
  What does the Home Secretary have to say to the 700 victims of crime, who have been subject to what must, in some cases, have been horrendous ordeals as a direct result of his allowing those people to out on the loose when the courts said that they should be in jail? He has taken responsibility for the policy. He must take responsibility for its effects.
  Mr. James Clappison: My right hon. Friend has spoken about new victims, but how does she think that old victims will feel when the people sentenced to long periods in prison for the offences that they have committed suddenly appear on the streets after serving only a fraction of their sentences?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question, which highlights why the Government's policy is such an insult and such a cynical way to treat victims. The Conservative party is pledged to introduce honesty in sentencing so that the sentence that victims hear being given will be the sentence that prisoners serve.
  The Home Secretary has betrayed the police. He has also betrayed the victims of crime by letting criminals out on his scheme. He has hit the public with a double whammy, allowing hundreds of criminals to commit further crimes when, but for his policy, they would have been locked up.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. Will she explain, to someone as old and tired as I am, why her party when in government was so keen to increase the remission period from one third to one half? That let thousands of people out of prison before their original sentences were complete. What is the difference between that policy all those years ago, and the current policy of trying to get people rehabilitated in the community?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman said that he was old and tired. He is living in the past. The policies that I have announced today are our policies now. [Interruption.] If the Government want the Conservative party to justify past policies, let them justify past Labour policies. Let the Home Secretary tell us why he has changed his mind on trial by jury and on the numbers in prisons. Let the Home Secretary tell us why he has changed his policies on illegal working. Let the Government explain why, in the past, they have had policies that they have changed now.
  26
  The fact is that the policies of the previous Conservative Government brought about a sustained and significant fall in crime. All that the Home Secretary has delivered is a rise in crime.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am always happy to justify any changes in approach that I have adopted when those changes are put to me accurately. As far as I could hear the right hon. Lady's extraordinary rant, nothing that she said could be described as that. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) asked about the remission changes announced in 1989 by Lord Hurd, when he was Home Secretary, and introduced some months later. The right hon. Lady was a supporter of that Conservative Government. Is she saying now that Lord Hurd got that policy completely wrong? If so, will she say why she and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) never changed that policy when they were in office?
  Miss Widdecombe: If we were to go back to 1989, the Government would have some interesting policies to answer for. That was before the Prime Minister decided to change all Labour's policies because the party could not win elections with the ones that it had. The Labour party had lost three elections in a row, and its policies meant that it did not have the confidence of the electorate. I should be quite willing to rehearse all the policies that the Labour party has overturned since 1989—on defence, Europe, and law and order—but the electorate are interested in 2001. The next general election cannot come soon enough for them, as they cannot wait to get rid of this incompetent Prime Minister and Home Secretary.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady now answer a simple question, which she has so far refused to answer? If she disagreed so fundamentally with Lord Hurd's approach, why did she not change that approach—[HON. MEMBERS: "She did."] No, she did not. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 stayed in force and the two thirds remission stayed at a half. Why did she not change it?
  Miss Widdecombe: We did. The right hon. Gentleman must have the shortest memory of any Labour Member. Does he remember the honesty in sentencing proposals that we introduced and had ready to put into law, and that he overturned in his first few weeks as Home Secretary? I remember asking him from the Back Benches whether the Home Secretary had therefore abandoned honesty in sentencing, and he said yes. So we did change the policy—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) changed it. It was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman, so we are being consistent, because we will reintroduce it when we are elected next year. We have been totally consistent, and the right hon. Gentleman has not.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Once more.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady.
  Miss Widdecombe: Three strikes and you are out.
  Mr. Straw: Three and I am in. Will the right hon. Lady now own up to the fundamental flaw in her so-called

  27
  honesty in sentencing approach? The provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 would have made no difference whatever to the length of sentence laid down in the 1991 Act.
  Miss Widdecombe: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would know that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that the virtue of honesty in sentencing is that the sentence that the victim hears handed down will be the sentence served.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: This is absolutely the last time.
  Mr. Hughes: This is a very important point. Will the right hon. Lady give us a simple answer on honesty in sentencing? Does she expect, that if her policy were implemented, longer sentences would be served on average and in total? What would be the effect on the number of people in prison?
  Miss Widdecombe: The sentence served would be the sentence handed down. Judges would be expected to take into account what they would have expected someone to serve. At present, a judge will sentence someone to five years, meaning two and a half. In future, he will say two and a half and he will mean two and a half.
  In deliberately letting thousands of convicted criminals out of jail before they have served less than half their sentences, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have shown the House and the country exactly what their promises to be tough on crime were worth. They have been tough on crime fighters and soft on criminals. Their special early release policy is an insult to the police, the victims of crime and the people of this country. That is the way in which the Labour Government conduct themselves in office.
  The Government swagger and they posture; the Prime Minister grins and he spins. The rhetoric of the Government is as vainglorious as any action that they take is vacuous. The fact remains that none of the Government's flagship policies on crime has worked. There are no child curfew orders—only a handful of anti-social behaviour orders. Prisoners are let out early, despite all the tough talk about the sentences that the courts should set. Those responsible for arresting criminals are reduced to the point at which they can hardly take any sensible action because there are simply not enough of them to do so.
  It is a shambles of a record. What baffles me is that the Home Secretary, who, when he started in office, used at least to admit when things were going wrong, has recently taken to pretending that everything is absolutely fine. He calls a policy that results in 700 crimes being committed while their perpetrators should have been in jail, but who were out only because he decided that they could be, a successful implementation. It is cynical, it is disgraceful, and it is a betrayal of victims.
  The change in government, which I believe will happen, cannot come soon enough. When it comes, criminals will serve the time that the judges have said that they should serve. No criminals will be released early just
  28
  because it is an easy way of coping with a rising prison population. If we have a rising prison population, we will build the necessary prisons to house that population, as we did before. We will ensure that prisons are purposeful and worthwhile places, not merely empty warehouses where prisoners kick their heels waiting to be released to commit more crime. That is what I envisage as a sensible way of coping with crime. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary should do one thing and do it now; they should apologise for the total shambles.
  4 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `notes that the introduction of Home Detention Curfew with electronic tagging as in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was specifically welcomed in the unanimous Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Session 1997–98 (HC 486-I), whose members endorsing the report at that time included the honourable Members for Woking, Surrey Heath and Aldershot; believes that one of the major factors contributing to re-offending is an inadequate transition between custody and life outside prison in the community; applauds the work initiated by HM Government better to manage that transition, through Home Detention Curfew, more effective drug treatment, Welfare to Work and greater emphasis on education, work and offender behaviour programmes; notes that short term prisoners are only released on Home Detention Curfew after a careful risk assessment, that about 94 per cent. of prisoners have completed Home Detention Curfew successfully, and that the latest information indicates that fewer than 2 per cent. have been arrested, prosecuted or convicted for offences committed on Home Detention Curfew; applauds the Government's toughening of the sentencing regime, its practical approach to honesty in sentencing, and its establishment of a comprehensive review of the sentencing framework; and further notes the Opposition's action in opposing strong measures against anti-social behaviour, benefit sanctions for probation offenders and reform of mode of trial, comforting only the miscreant at the expense of the victim and the community.'.
  I greatly welcome the debate, not least because it provides a timely opportunity to contrast the Government's strategy for sentencing offenders with the huge contradictions at the heart of the Opposition's approach. We saw those contradictions exposed as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) twisted in the wind on the effect of her so-called policy of honesty in sentencing, to which I shall return. To manufacture her specific case in respect of the home detention curfew she had to dissemble and to build her argument on two insinuations that are demonstrably incorrect. I shall begin by putting the facts straight about the HDC.
  The Opposition's motion claims explicitly that the home detention curfew scheme is operating outside the normal sentencing regime set down in law. That is simply untrue. The HDC is an integral part of the operation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which lays down the current sentencing framework. Within that framework, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates a new threshold for the release of prisoners serving less than four years. It allows for the placement of a short-term prisoner on curfew after he or she has served
  the requisite period for the term of his sentence.
  It further defines in statute what is meant by "the requisite period". The meaning and intent of the HDC provisions in law are clear.
  Contrary to what is asserted in the motion, the HDC scheme does not allow release from prison before the minimum period required by law. Instead, the scheme has

  29
  changed the minimum period required for short-term prisoners serving sentences of at least three months but less than four years. It provides for release on a scale linked to the overall sentence up to a maximum of 60 days before the halfway point of the sentence for someone sentenced to just under four years.
  There is nothing novel or radical about that concept. The sentencing framework laid down by the 1991 Act sets out the concept of discretionary release for prisoners serving four years or more. The Act was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, of whom the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and many other right hon. and hon. Members were members. It was operated by the right hon. Lady when she was a Home Office Minister. The scheme—parole—is a familiar part of our criminal justice framework. The HDC extends the same principle of discretionary release and applies it to those sentenced to less than four years.
  Parole and the HDC also share another common characteristic. In both instances, while the majority of prisoners are eligible for the HDC, decisions as to who to release are taken only after careful risk assessment. In both instances, it is only a minority of those eligible who are placed on curfew.
  Like parole, the fact that a particular custodial sentence will make an offender eligible for the HDC is something of which the courts are fully aware when sentencing. The courts are now well used to the idea that there is an earliest and latest point at which a prisoner might be released.
  What is new about the HDC is that it aims to improve the effectiveness of the period spent by prisoners on licence or under supervision. The right hon. Lady talks about the need for prisons and sentencing better to rehabilitate prisoners. I accept that entirely. One of the major problems, of which she must be aware, is high levels of reoffending by prisoners, who come out on their normal release date or later. Securing a better transition between custody and the community must be one of the aims behind any sentencing policy designed to ensure that prisoners are less likely to reoffend. The right hon. Lady's description of the scheme as an early release scheme fails—as her entire approach does—to take account of the significant curtailment of liberty imposed by a curfew backed up by electronic monitoring.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Just what would the Home Secretary say to the two women who were raped by prisoners who were in the community rather than in prison?
  Mr. Straw: I should say the same to those victims of crime as I would to anyone else who had suffered a serious crime, perhaps committed by someone released on parole under schemes operated by the Conservatives, or even by someone released on the normal release date. I would deeply regret that those crimes happened, but the overall aim of the scheme is better management of prisoners' transition between custody and the community.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald insinuated, entirely falsely, that if people served the extra period—never more than 60 days, and typically 30 or 40—of their sentences before normal release, they would never, ever reoffend. In fact, we know that well over 55 per cent. of people released at normal points of their
  30
  sentences reoffend. One of the great crime challenges facing us—it should be a cross-party matter—is how to reduce the number of those who reoffend.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has put into law a scheme that has meant that a large number of criminals—20,000 at the latest published count, and probably more—have been released before the point in their sentences at which they would have been released had he not done so. Some 700 crimes have been committed. It would be bad enough if all of them were trivial, but some them crimes have been extremely serious. In addition, dozens of those who have been released have disappeared.
  The point is that but for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, those criminals would still be in prison, and the particular victims probably would not have suffered. I am not suggesting that those people would never reoffend if they were kept longer in prison, but they would not have committed the particular offences that they committed, and the victims of those offences, who should have been protected by the fact that those criminals were in prison, were not protected. That is the point.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady may not be making that suggestion now, but it was the precise implication of her speech. Any system in which prisoners are released subject to a risk assessment requires us to do our best to get that assessment correct. In some cases, risk assessment will not work. That is true even at the most serious end of the sentencing regime in respect of those subject to life sentences for murder. The right hon. Lady well knows that successive Secretaries of State have taken very seriously their responsibility to ensure that there is a proper risk assessment, but, with the best will in the world, about 8 per cent. of prisoners subject to mandatory licence are recalled to prison for reoffending or because they are subject to a further risk assessment. I shall later outline the defects inherent in the right hon. Lady's proposals for so-called honesty in sentencing, which, in my view, would put the public at greater risk than our carefully calibrated system.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have pledged to abolish his scheme. Will he say from the Dispatch Box that he believes that abolishing the scheme will result in a rise in crime above the 700 extra crimes that he has brought about?
  Mr. Straw: That is impossible to say. If our scheme works successfully, however, the overall result should be less reoffending by prisoners. The only figures that we have—we have done our best to provide the maximum information—relate to the number of offences committed on curfew. If we look further down the track, we hope—although it remains a matter for research—that, overall, fewer offences will be committed.
  Only about a third of those eligible for the scheme are accepted. The point of the scheme is that those people are subject to a strict curfew of a minimum of nine hours a day—more usually 12—during which time they are not allowed to leave the confines of their home or probation hostel. Moreover, the scheme helps to impose a structure on what can often be chaotic lives. It forces curfewees to

  31
  think and plan ahead, to establish a proper home address, to follow daily routines, and to submit to an ordered—if no longer institutional—life style.
  Mr. Michael Howard: How many orders under the scheme are in force for more than 12 hours a day—if, indeed, any are? If they are not, and to the extent that they are not, does he agree with Frances Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform—with whom I have not agreed too often in the past—when she says of those released under the scheme that they can always commit their burglaries during the day?
  Mr. Straw: Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have never found Frances Crook's interventions in penal debates—
  Mr. Bercow: She is a member of the right hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Straw: I do not know whether she is a member of my party—[Interruption.]—The hon. Gentleman assures me that she is. I do not usually find her interventions on such issues particularly helpful, and I do not in this case.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is right to assert that curfew lasts for a maximum of 12 hours. Of course, we accept that that is not prison; it is curfew and there has never been any suggestion otherwise. Later, I shall try to tease out from the Opposition the difference in principle between the arrangements for curfewing offenders, which are worrying the Opposition, and those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Lady introduced in 1995 on the back of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the use of curfew not only at the end of a prison sentence, but as an alternative to prison.
  I have already explained to the House that the implication of the right hon. Lady's comments was that, but for the home detention curfew, people would be incarcerated in prison for months, if not years, beyond the date on which they were released on curfew. That is palpably untrue. It deceives the public to pretend that such people are not short-term prisoners and are not always due for release within a matter of weeks. The scheme is about improving the arrangements for the return of those people to the community and, hopefully, enhancing public protection.
  Since the scheme began, 72,500 prisoners have been eligible for it, but just 22,000 of them were placed on it. Of those, about 94 per cent. successfully completed the curfew period, and just 2 per cent.—although even that is too many—are known to have reoffended while on curfew. Preliminary research published by the Home Office in January 2000 shows that, notwithstanding the complexity and large scale of the scheme, the home detention curfew operated successfully in its first year.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we compare the number of people who successfully completed the home curfew scheme with that for the parole scheme or the licence scheme, there are a small minority of failures under all those schemes? At least there is progress when people can live a stabilised life at home.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Although, like any Minister in my position, I regret any
  32
  reoffending while people are on licence—of whatever kind—the HDC success rate on reoffending is significantly better than that for other systems of release on licence.
  Occasionally, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is constructive and makes constructive suggestions about the scheme. When we discussed the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill on Report, she and her hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) tabled an amendment on sex offenders. I hope that the House will be pleased to hear that I agree that the protection of the public may best be served by excluding—as the amendment proposed—all sex offenders, subject to notification under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, whether or not their current sentence was for a relevant offence under that Act. We shall introduce an amendment in another place to achieve that.
  Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary's problem is the chasm between Labour's pre-election rhetoric and post-election reality. Will he tell the House where in the Labour party manifesto, which promised a "battle against drugs" and a
  commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in our communities
  it was also stated that the Government intended to let out thousands of drug dealers early?
  Mr. Straw: It was not intended that the Government should let out thousands of drugs dealers early, and nor have we done that.
  I return to the point about the wilful dissembling in the Opposition's amendment, which suggested that people are released before they serve the minimum period required by law. Of course they are not released before they serve the minimum period required by law—
  Mr. Hogg:You changed the law.
  Mr. Straw: There is a huge and fundamental difference between changing the law, as we have done in the open, and what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggests, which is that we have evaded the law and are releasing people before the minimum period required by law. That is simply not the case, and she knows it.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary has not answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). If the right hon. Gentleman had said before the last election, "Our answer to the drugs problem is to reduce the amount of time that drugs offenders will serve in prison and then let them out—tagged as they may be—so that they will still nevertheless be perfectly able to deal in drugs", does he think that that would have inspired the confidence of the electorate?
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Mr. Straw: I am just about to answer the question. Of course nobody would present a parody of that kind.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is exactly what the Government have done.
  Mr. Straw: That is not exactly what we have done. What we said repeatedly before and after the election—

  33
  and it is what we are doing—is that we need better to manage the transition between custody and the community so as to reduce the risk of reoffending. We are talking about whether prisoners should be released one week or five or six weeks later, having served a period in custody before that.
  We have significantly increased the investment that we are putting into fighting the drugs menace both inside and outside prison. We commended without reservation what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe did through the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons. We supported that measure, continued it and doubled enforcement of it. Following representations in my constituency, I have considerably tightened up the regime to prevent visitors and staff from bringing drugs into prisons. The overall result of mandatory drug testing and what we are doing with visitors and staff has been a further reduction in the number of prisoners testing positive for any kind of drugs in their blood.
  We are also introducing what is called the counselling, assessment and throughcare scheme—CARATS—to provide far better treatment in prison. Alongside that, we have provided £20 million to police forces around the country so that they can establish arrest referral schemes in every major custody suite. When people are arrested, they can be put in touch in the custody suite or in the cells with a drugs worker, so that arrangements can be made alongside whatever sentence the court decides to issue to get them quickly into treatment. Everyone knows that if we delay getting drug addicts into treatment, we often delay beyond their life expectancy. In addition, as all the evidence shows, getting them quickly into treatment means that the number of offences they commit goes down rapidly.
  We were responsible for the home detention curfew scheme and take the credit for it. I am, however, concerned that the Government should not claim all the credit for innovation in the use of electronically monitored curfews as an alternative to custody. I always want to give credit where it is due. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will recall, it was the Conservatives who in 1995, commenced the provisions of Criminal Justice Act 1991, which allowed the courts to pass curfew orders supervised through electronic tagging.
  Mr. Howard: The courts.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "the courts", but under the provisions that he and I have exercised as Home Secretary and to which we are both committed, it is not the courts that finally make a risk assessment of the most heinous of criminals—namely murderers—and then determine release and licence conditions; it is whoever occupies the position of Secretary of State. As I said earlier, the courts know full well the minimum and maximum time that is likely to be served when they hand down sentence.
  The availability of such a community curfew order meant that some offenders who would otherwise be considered for a custodial sentence could be dealt with by electronically monitored curfew instead. The previous Government accepted that curfew with electronic monitoring was a useful alternative to prison, not only for the last few weeks or days, but in place of the whole custodial sentence.
  Mr. Howard: Is the Home Secretary incapable of understanding the difference in principle between making such an order available as an option to the courts when they come to pass sentence before any sentence is served, which is indeed what we did, and the use of that procedure by the Home Secretary to release people from prison earlier than they would otherwise have been released? Is he incapable of recognising that distinction?
  Mr. Straw: Obviously I am capable of recognising the differences in the regime, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman questions whether there is a difference in principle. I go back to the debate 10 years ago when the proposal for such a system was before the House—[Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. and learned Gentleman waving his hand because the key point, the gravamen, the burden of the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, is that such people should not be let out into the community even with an electronic tag. She thinks that they should be in prison. However, the principle that binds the home detention curfew and the system of curfew which was enacted in 1991, and implemented by the Conservatives in 1995, is, as the then Home Office Minister John Patten said, to put someone under curfew
  for certain periods during the day or night to keep him out of prison.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 258.]
  The provision was designed to keep people out of prison not just for a few weeks of their sentences, but for the whole of their sentences. It was seen as a direct alternative to prison up to the highest end of community sentencing. Virtually every one of those people put under that curfew would otherwise have gone to prison. Its aim was explicitly to keep people out of prison.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman must focus on the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Under the home detention curfew scheme, release on tagging is an Executive discretionary decision—not one made by the judge—whereas the order to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred is a judicially imposed curfew. They are different.
  Mr. Straw: In one respect, they are fundamentally the same: they are alternatives to prison. I shall go halfway towards the right hon. and learned Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and for Folkestone and Hythe in a second. They and the Conservative party must recognise that, in the debates 10 years ago, there was no question but that the curfew orders were alternatives to custody. Yes, they were judicially decided, but they were alternatives not just to a few weeks of a sentence, but to any period in custody.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will reply first to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If the only issue separating us on the home detention curfew is whether the decision to curfew a prisoner should be made at the beginning of a sentence by the court, which would obviously be a judicial decision, or whether it should be

  35
  made towards the end of a sentence by the Executive, which in practice would be prison governors, we could have an interesting debate.
  I said that I would come to the fact that, as the House may be aware, we have established a major review of sentencing policy because it is plain that the 1991 Act is in need of reform. One arrangement that we are proposing is a better mixture of custody and community sentences, which will make it possible for the court to lay down that an element of the sentence should be spent in custody, then an element spent on electronic curfew and an element spent on licence.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No; I promised to give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way yet again. It is almost disingenuous to compare letting someone out of prison with not putting him in prison in the first place. The point of tagging as an alternative to prison is exactly the same as that of a community sentence as an alternative to prison, or probation as an alternative to prison—that is, a decision has been taken by a court that prison is not yet appropriate. In the case of people who are let out of prison, a decision has been taken by the court that prison is appropriate. That is the distinction between the two. They are wholly different approaches to criminal justice, and the right hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that.
  Mr. Straw: No, those are not wholly different approaches to criminal justice. The right hon. Lady simply had not spotted the huge inconsistency in her approach and is now embarrassed by it. The two approaches are the same. The record shows that an electronic curfew was introduced in the 1991 Act in respect of offenders who would otherwise have been sent to prison and whom it was not safe to put on the normal range of community sentences.
  The hole in the right hon. Lady's argument—I repeat the point so that she understands it—is that if she has objections to the electronic monitoring of people coming towards the end of their custodial sentences, she must have much greater objections to those who are put on electronic curfew for the whole of their sentences when otherwise they would palpably have been sent to prison.
  Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that the absurdity of the right hon. Lady's position is best demonstrated by the fact that as people come towards the end of their sentences, they are allowed home on home leave. From some prisons, they are sent out to work every day. They are allowed other forms of liberty. In other words, controlled liberty is a stage in rehabilitation, and that is all that we are discussing.
  Mr. Straw: That rehabilitation is extremely important and it needs to be regulated properly. If longer-term prisoners in particular are to re-make a life and, hopefully,
  36
  get away from crime, a gradual reintroduction to community life is essential, otherwise further reoffending will occur.
  Before I leave the 1990 debates, the House, especially Opposition Members, may be interested to learn that during the debate a then very young hon. Member said that prison
  clearly does not do many people a great deal of good and does not turn them away from crime.—[Official Report, 12 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 408.]
  That observation was made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  It is a matter of record what approach the Conservative party officially took to the home detention curfew when that was discussed in Standing Committee. It is also a matter of record than when the Home Affairs Committee considered the issue in a good deal of detail, and spent some months taking evidence about it, it concluded unanimously that the HDC scheme
  would provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.
  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) signed the report, along with the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says now from a sedentary position that they were not talking about this or that. The evidence shows clearly that the Committee discussed the home detention curfew scheme, which was in draft in the Crime and Disorder Bill. That is what the hon. Gentleman signed up to.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: There is no doubt that my hon. Friends and I would never have agreed to the report if anyone had suggested that the Home Secretary would release drug suppliers and importers, those convicted of manslaughter and those who killed through dangerous driving. The Home Secretary's argument is utterly specious.
  Mr. Straw: All the detail and all the criteria of the scheme were placed before the Committee. We have used it less than was anticipated when I made my statement in November 1997. The last time I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he signed up to the report, he had a different excuse. Earlier, he said that he knew what he was signing, but that it was different from the scheme that exists today. On a previous occasion, his excuse was that he did not know to what he had signed up because he had not been a member of the Committee for the whole time that the Committee considered the matter.
  Mr. Hawkins: That is true, too.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that that is true, but he was appointed to the Committee in early March, and the Committee did not report until the end of July. We can draw a new rule from that experience: the Hawkins rule of personal responsibility. Individuals are not responsible for any decision to which they sign up if

  37
  it has taken less than four months to reach a conclusion. Whatever the excuse, which changes time and again, it is poor. The hon. Gentleman backed the home detention curfew two years ago, and his explanation for his volte face is demeaning to him as well as the Committee.
  Let us consider honesty in sentencing.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald claimed today that she would scrap the home detention curfew and all automatic early release on licence. Of course, we all understand that when we talk to the public, they instinctively want not so much honesty, but complete certainty in sentencing. We all understand that instinct. People want 10 years to mean 10 years, and two years to mean two years. However, I suggest that anyone with an understanding of the penal system must acknowledge that there is bound to be tension between absolute certainty in sentencing and the need to maintain good order in prisons, to provide incentives to address offending behaviour, and to support effective reintegration into the community. The way in which that tension is resolved is at the heart of the debate.
  The right hon. Lady accepted, not least by her silence, that the practical effects of her proposals for so-called honesty in sentencing would not add one day to the time that any prisoner served in prison under a sentence that he or she received today. However, she also said that the sentence given would be the sentence served. Under her scheme, as far as one can understand it, there would still be flexibility in the length of time that a prisoner served, as there was under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Under that Act, up to one sixth of a sentence could be cut for good behaviour. Thus an offender who received a 12-month prison sentence could be released two months earlier than the time laid down by the court. However, there is a difference between the right hon. Lady's scheme and ours. Under her scheme, unlike ours, prisoners would be released without any electronic curfew system.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: In a moment.
  The problem with the right hon. Lady's so-called honesty in sentencing is wider and more fundamental. Indeed, the drastic way in which proposals were brought before the House in early 1997 and frequently changed, as we all remember, shows that it was ill-considered and poorly thought through. Prisoners would be assessed for early release on the basis of their behaviour in prison, not on the basis of the risk they posed to the public. Once released, offenders who breached their supervision requirements could be recalled to custody only by bringing them before the courts and charging them. Of course I am worried about the number, albeit small, of people who commit offences while on curfew, but the numbers who committed offences under the right hon. Lady's early-release scheme were bound to be greater because it provided for no quick recall. That contrasts with the quick system that section 103 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) in a moment.
  38
  The Government believe in honesty in sentencing. No one disagrees with that principle. The question is how we achieve it, given that there is no system—none is proposed by the Conservative party—that would achieve what the public want: absolute certainty in sentencing. In our manifesto, we proposed that courts should spell out in the sentence the period that an offender was likely to serve in custody and the period that he was likely to serve in the community. The Lord Chief Justice's practice direction, issued by Lord Bingham in January 1998, when he was Lord Chief Justice, ensures that the courts do just that.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Home Secretary spoke about honesty in sentencing. Will he give us an honest answer on when he expects to introduce legislation to follow the Prime Minister's pledge on on-the-spot fines?
  Mr. Straw: We shall introduce legislation as soon as possible.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a second, but first I want to answer the rest of question asked by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. We shall introduce legislation, but not in the next couple of weeks.
  Mr. Hogg: Reverting to the question of honesty in sentencing, I personally accept that it is necessary to give a degree of discount to maintain order in prisons. However, the right hon. Gentleman must address whether, in sentences up to four years, that discount needs to be one half. Most people think that that is far too much to achieve the purpose of maintaining order in prisons and better integration in society. A discount of 20 per cent., which should be earned, might be altogether more appropriate.
  Mr. Straw: There is no particular magic about the current arrangements, which were introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I had objections to the proposals in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, of which I am happy to give further particulars, not because I disagreed in principle with what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was trying to do, but because the more I looked at their detail, the more I thought that all that would be produced was some high degree of chaos on sentencing for no purpose. As the right hon. and learned Member admitted in government and subsequently in opposition, the proposals would not have made any difference to the overall sentence that an individual served.
  Having served as an Under-Secretary in the Home Office between 1986 and 1989, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows that these are complicated issues. I established a review of sentencing so that, in slower time, we can work out a better sentencing regime—or what I would call a seamless sentence in which, for example, there is greater use of suspended sentences, short-term time in custody and, in some cases, day prisons, evening custody and night custody as appropriate, along with electronic tagging and periods spent under supervision. I hope that we can have a serious debate about that, as it is an important issue.
  If we are to try to reduce reoffending in our society and have that flexibility which is related principally not to good behaviour in prison—although that should be a

  39
  factor—but to likelihood of reoffending, a degree of discretion should be given to those administering the sentences, which, to some extent, collides with the issue of the court's control. One way of squaring the issues in that important debate is to ensure that the courts manage sentences in a way that they do not at the moment. We have introduced that in the drug treatment and testing order, and I believe that if sentencers—judges and magistrates—are the managers of the sentence, we will secure better sentences targeted at an offender's individual circumstances. We will also increase hugely the information available to sentencers about the effect of their sentencing decisions.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I should like to follow up the point that the Home Secretary is making. If his policy of early release, which he feels is successful, is designed to help to reintegrate prisoners into law-abiding society, surely it is needed even more for high-risk prisoners than for low-risk prisoners, who are unlikely to offend when they are released. He needs the release programme for the high-risk prisoners if he is going to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending. Surely the Home Secretary is dealing with the easy end of the problem, rather than the harder end.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman's criticism comes from the opposite direction from that of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I happen to believe that it is better to start such arrangements at the lower-risk end of the scale; it would have been impossible to justify starting at the other end. I can understand that, right at the other end of the scale, if someone was released after a very long period in prison it might well be sensible for him or her to be tagged for quite a period, not as an alternative to time in custody at that stage, but to strengthen supervision in the community.
  I admit that there was a high degree of scepticism about electronic monitoring systems when they were first discussed 10 years ago, but I have no doubt that they are proving increasingly effective technically and, I believe, in terms of reoffending and the control of prisoners. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in sentencing policy, and I hope that he will make observations to the sentencing review, which we intend will be an entirely open affair.
  As ever, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald used some extravagant language this afternoon.
  Miss Widdecombe: Very accurate language.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady says "very accurate" from a position of complete impartiality, but I think that that is for others to judge. Time and again, her rhetoric, and that of her party, is belied by her actions. We saw that only too clearly on asylum, where Conservative Members' publicly stated approach was belied by what they did on the civil penalty for hauliers and by their support of the retention of cash benefits for all asylum seekers. We have seen it on the mode of trial, where the Opposition appear to believe that the interests of the law-abiding public are best served by persistent offenders working the system by insisting on a jury trial against the decision of an independent court. We have also seen it on
  40
  anti-social behaviour orders, which the Conservatives have pledged to tear up, despite increasing evidence of their effectiveness.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way in a moment.
  Only last week, Conservative Front Benchers in the other place voted against the benefit changes that we are putting in place to ensure that community punishments are better enforced.
  Mr. Howard: The Home Secretary seems to have left the subject of custody orders and imprisonment—he may even conceivably be in the middle of his peroration—but I hope that he will not sit down without answering the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked about the 4,000 prison places identified by the Prime Minister. We are keen to know about them and whether the Home Secretary agrees with the Prime Minister's figure. Are there 4,000 prison places?
  Miss Widdecombe: Where are they?
  Mr. Howard: Indeed, as my right hon. Friend asks, where are they?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows better than I do that the right hon. Lady asks so many questions that it is never possible to answer them all at the same time. I had forgotten about that particular question, but the answer is already on the record in the prison service projections. The current prison population is about 65,000 and the capacity is about 69,000—the difference is 4,000. The reason for that change is partly the effect of the home detention curfew, which has reduced the prison population by about 2,000.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
  The other aspect of that is the effectiveness of the Narey changes, which have made a considerable difference.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the last time in a moment, but now I shall answer his first question. The Narey changes have made a difference of about another 2,000 places.
  Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, who has been generous in giving way, but I am sure that he would like to deal with the question on the basis of the facts. According to Home Office figures, at the end of April this year—I do not imagine that the position has been transformed as dramatically as the Prime Minister might think since then—the prison population exceeded certified normal accommodation by 1,200.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the so-called certified normal capacity has usually been exceeded. For example, it was exceeded by 4,500 in the year in which he was Home Secretary.

  41
  What is crucial is the usable operational capacity, which the Conservatives always took account of—[Interruption.] Of course, it depends what is meant by overcrowding. As everybody knows, there is a grave distinction between so-called certified normal capacity, which is now 62,300—the prison population is some 65,000—and the usable operational capacity, which is 69,000. That is the difference.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have spoken for 45 minutes. I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, but—
  Mr. Clappison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
  Mr. Straw: Oh, come on then.
  Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary brought up the question of mode of trial. May I gently suggest to him that, on this matter, consistency may not be his strongest suit? Can he name one thing that has changed since 1997, when he described the proposal that he is now bringing forward on mode of trial as wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective?
  Mr. Straw: One thing that has changed in my mind—I am sure that we do not want a full debate on this matter, but I have been over it in great detail—is the introduction in legislation of a full right of appeal, so that the final decision will be made by a Crown court judge.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald began her speech by commenting on our record on crime. Crime today is still lower than it was in 1997, and that record compares extremely well with any previous post-war Government, particularly post-war Conservative Governments. Crime is down: home break-ins are down by a fifth and car crime has fallen by 15 per cent. Compare that with the indelible record of the Conservatives, under which crime doubled in their 18 years in office, while the number of people convicted of those crimes fell by a third.
  We are delivering the most radical reform of our youth justice system in 50 years and are on track to deliver our pledge to halve the time that it takes to process persistent young offenders through the courts. We are getting on top of the long-term trend in crime—in very sharp contrast to the Conservatives' record. While the Opposition rant, we deliver. I ask the House to support the amendment.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important debate. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) reminded us, however, that it has a comic side, which was portrayed by the splendid article in yesterday's News of the World about a man from Bridgnorth, Mr. Tony Higgins, who hopped off to the pub
  after daft prison staff tagged his false leg by mistake.
  The article was entitled "Out on a Limb".
  The subplot to today's debate is that, twice in four days on law and order policy and criminal justice policy, it is the Prime Minister who is out on a limb. Without talking
  42
  to the Home Office, he first announces a new sort of offence whereby people get marched off to the cashpoint, and then cites spare prison capacity. If one tries very hard, as the Home Secretary was doing at the end of his speech, one can almost justify the Prime Minister's figures, but they are inconsistent with all the figures used in recent times. I hope that one lesson that has been learned in Downing street in the past few days is that it is as dangerous for Prime Ministers to make policy on the hoof as it is for leaders of the Tory party. I also hope that we shall see a reduction in that sort of policy making by both.
  I gather that the Government fixed some time ago what they now call the crime summit. Even over the weekend, the terminology changed—one newspaper called it a convention and it had become a seminar by this morning.
  The Conservative party has understandably chosen to use an Opposition Day debate to highlight the early release of prisoners. The Prime Minister responds by announcing in Germany his policy for dealing with thugs, then the police spend the weekend saying what a silly idea it is.
  All that apart, we are glad that at last violent crime and the influence of alcohol on violent crime is on the agenda. Ever since I took over this job, I have repeatedly asked that we prioritise that problem. We have spent a lot of time in this Parliament talking about the effect of the misuse of drugs on crime and have spent far too little time discussing the effects of the misuse of alcohol, and I am glad that we are correcting that imbalance.
  I hope that we are learning how to make better policy on difficult issues such as sentencing and penal policy. The right way to create policy in a democracy is fairly well established. The Government should establish what research has been carried out, and if there is not enough they should commission it. They should discuss possible ways forward with people who know what they are talking about. They should seek the advice of colleagues in Parliament across the parties who have relevant experience and interest, and a desire to express their view—we have the Select Committee system for that. They should have a discussion with the political parties. When they are ready and have tested the ideas they should legislate. Careful legislation after careful deliberation often produces good results. The experience of all of us who have been in the House any length of time is that hasty legislation after little or no deliberation is often useless and not used either.
  I gently suggest to the Prime Minister that it is usually a good idea to have a discussion with the experts before announcing policy proposals, rather than announce policy proposals and talk to the experts afterwards. We should now get rid of this new item on the agenda, because new offences and new punishments—let alone offences and punishments for which the same person arrests, charges, tries and finds the accused guilty—require careful political consideration, especially if they go in a direction in which we have not gone before.
  Like others, I have looked back to see how much Home Office law and order legislation there has been over the years since the Home Secretary and I entered the House. Although this year is a bumper year for Home Office initiatives, some of which are understandable and entirely appropriate—I think that there have been more than in any other year—there has not been a year since we entered Parliament without many Home Office Bills. That does

  43
  not mean to say that they have always been successful, lasting or good. When I consider the legislation that has been passed and look back over the press coverage and ministerial speeches, I see that the road of law and order policy has been littered with failed criminal justice initiatives launched sometimes with good and sometimes with less honourable intentions. We need to stand back from all that.
  Today's debate is the first debate we have had this year on penal policy. That is a wider issue than the early release of prisoners. I want to flag up five issues that Parliament should address once a year more coherently and better than we do at the moment.
  We should discuss how to reduce criminality—the propensity to crime. My hon. Friends and I believe that the initiative that the Government announced today is a good one. We should provide young people with constructive activity so that they are not bored and thus prone to criminality, which they may otherwise not get into. The more the youth service, schools, the education and training system and the Employment Service can do, the more positive the role young people can play in the community, and the more likely it is that they will not commit offences. I commend the Youth Justice Board's initiative, and the Government's and the Prime Minister's support for it.
  We should have a debate about how to prevent crime and detect crime. They are two separate parts of the process. We should have a debate about clearing up crime. We had a debate in the House recently, in which we highlighted the fact that there are only three convictions or cautions for every 100 British crime survey registered offences. The last debate we should have is the one we are having today about how to reduce reoffending, including how effective punishment is and what punishment works. Unless we try coherently and regularly to consider all those five issues, we are unlikely to have a more orderly and less criminal society.
  We are happy that the Conservatives have chosen this subject for debate. It is a perfectly proper issue to consider, but I wish it had been a wider debate on penal policy. I hope that we can have that wider debate later in the parliamentary year.
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for the first time permitted home detention curfews. That Act became law two years ago this month, although it was another six months before home detention curfews were permitted as a result of the phased implementation of the legislation. It is entirely proper for us to review how it has worked 18 months or two years later, and we welcome the opportunity to do so. To their credit, Conservative Front Benchers—notably the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—have tabled numerous questions about the issue, and the Government have supplied answers without seeking to hide the facts.
  We should review regularly all five priority areas—the effectiveness in reducing the propensity to crime, in preventing crime, in detecting crime, in clearing up crime and in reducing reoffending. The more we can do that on the basis of the evidence, the better.
  Let me say something about an issue that is relevant to the set of factors that put people in prison in the first place. I said a word or two about the need to reduce the
  44
  propensity to crime; let me now say a topical word about reducing crime itself—preventing crime. Perhaps at this very minute, chief police officers are having tea with the Prime Minister up the road. It is to their credit that, ever since the Government were elected and before, they have kept on saying that they need enough colleagues to do the job. Whatever else we do later in the cycle of criminal justice measures, we need to ensure that the police service is adequate to prevent crime in the first place.
  When anti-social behaviour takes place on a Friday night outside a pub in Brent, Southwark or anywhere else in the country, the lay person can do some things and the publican can do others, but if crime is to be prevented there must be enough police patrolling the streets. I hope—as do my colleagues, whether their seats are in the north-west, the south-east or anywhere else—that, when the Chancellor announces his comprehensive spending review conclusions later this month, we shall find that representations made by the Home Office, Opposition Members and the police themselves have been heeded. I hope that there will then be enough in the kitty to allow the police to recruit the number of full-time, retained part-time or special police to do the job—if they can recruit them, of course. That is a separate issue.
  New York's policing has been more successful recently, and people apparently feel more confident in Paris than in London, because—as the Minister will note from the figures—those cities have considerably larger police forces than our capital has. Of course, more police do not necessarily mean less crime; but, as I have said before in this place, I have never heard anyone argue that fewer police provide a better chance of preventing crime.
  Mr. Bermingham: As recent examples show, the period between application to admission to the police force for training can be as long as 18 months. Admission procedures and the funding of new recruits need to be re-examined.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree. I hope that we can soon have a debate about recruitment. I think that we could usefully pool the various initiatives that have been suggested by my hon. Friends and me, and by members of other parties, to make the police service more appealing to school leavers.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The chief constable in Merseyside proposes to ignore traffic accidents, as long as they do not involve human lives—as long as they are not "true" accidents—in order to put more bobbies on the beat. I think that that may be a good move.
  Mr. Hughes: There is a big debate about it. I support a move in that direction. At the weekend, there was a story in the Financial Times about the Prime Minister's willingness to change the structure of the police. I do not know whether he consulted the Home Secretary about that, but, as I have said to, for instance, chief police officers, I think that jobs that could be done by others should not be done by the police. To her credit, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made similar proposals. We need a debate on the subject. We should ensure that the police concentrate on what only the police can do, while others

  45
  deal with matters such as certain motoring offences—although we shall continue to need the police to deal with some traffic matters, both in Merseyside and elsewhere.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us believe that maintenance of a good traffic police service would not only revolutionise road safety, but make an enormous impact on the numbers of road deaths and injuries? The suggestion that it is possible to hive off bits of traffic policing is a rather dangerous one that needs to be considered very carefully before the House accepts it.
  Mr. Hughes: Not only has the hon. Lady long been a Member, but she has a specific interest in transport issues, on which she speaks with authority. I understand the point that she makes. I am not saying that traffic issues should not concern police. However, there is an argument—I shall not go into its detail now—that restructuring the police service would perhaps allow traffic, transport and safety matters to be dealt with far more comprehensively. British Transport police, for example, are a stand-alone part of the system, but perhaps they should be more integrated. Perhaps we should have more regional police forces, rather than county police forces. I hope that we shall be able to have that debate, as reform of the police service is on the agenda. I am sure that we will return to that agenda.
  I believe that police are making clear representations to the Government on crime clear-up rates. We shall be better able to clear up crime if we better support and protect witnesses. We often fail to obtain convictions because witnesses either refuse to talk to police and the courts about the crime or, after talking about it initially, stop talking. Although I shall not elaborate now on how we can redress that situation, I have partly communicated thoughts on the matter to the Home Secretary. However, unless we devise a much better set of protection mechanisms for witnesses, we are likely to continue having a very poor conviction rate. Additionally, for those who interfere with witnesses and jurors, we should have more severe and automatic sentences. People who interfere with justice in this way should know that their action is an aggravating factor and that they will be additionally punished for it.
  This debate—on when to release prisoners—is really about how we can reduce our appalling reoffending rates and make prison more effective. In the words of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we have to do what works. That is not a party political sentiment. In the past week, another previous Tory Home Secretary has made it very clear that he still believes that prison does not necessarily prevent re-offending. The specific issue that we are addressing is whether home detention curfew helps to prevent re-offending.
  Two years ago, in our consideration of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Government introduced the provision for home curfew detention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was then our Home Affairs spokesman, supported that proposal. Subsequently, Liberal Democrat Members supported the new clause introducing the proposal. Although the provision may not be operating perfectly, we shall not change our view on it today.
  46
  Interestingly, on Third Reading of the 1998 Act, Conservative Front Benchers supported the provision for home detention curfew. The then shadow Home Secretary, in his speech on Third Reading, said not a word about the provision's iniquity or inappropriateness. Although he talked about other things, he did not talk about that. Home detention curfew was not the big issue that the current shadow Home Secretary suggests it has become.
  I do not want to add to the debate about the role of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. However, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the Committee examined the issue of home detention curfew, as it should have done, and its members—who were from all three parties representing English constituencies—unanimously supported its introduction. That is the deliberative way in which such proposals should be implemented. The proposal was enshrined in law in the right way, with the support of this place and of the other place.
  The Government's amendment to the motion correctly flags up the success rate of home detention curfew. The fact is that 18,800 of the 20,000 people participating in the scheme have not re-offended. Ideally, there would have been no failures. However, there have been a considerable number of successes. We should not forget the basic facts in this debate.
  Before today's debate, the Home Secretary announced that the Government are reviewing sentencing policy. We believe that such a review is a good idea, and we welcome it. Although I have not heard that the review will be entirely independent of the Government, I think that it would be more authoritative if it were.
  The home detention policy, together with electronic tagging and all other alternatives to custody—as well as custody itself—should be included in the review. It is no good having a review if we do not look at how successful prison is on the one hand and how successful the alternatives are on the other. The Select Committee on Home Affairs provided a useful check list of the alternatives and looked at them all. It would be good to have such an independent review again, as well as a look at sentencing.
  The Committee listed not only home detention curfew and electronic tagging, but suspended sentences, weekend prison or short prison sentences and fines. "What works?" is the question. Is it better to have a punishment that is inside, outside with a restriction or outside all the time? I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the review of sentencing in general will specifically include a review of home detention curfew and if he will tell us by when the Government expect the review to be completed. I suggest that it would be sensible for the review to be completed by the end of this calendar year, two years after the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into place. The Liberal Democrats will play a full part in the process and will be happy to do so.
  Parliament and the Government should commission independent reviews of sentencing regularly because we are not doing terribly well at the moment. Whether prison numbers are going up or down, we are not consistently bringing down crime figures, nor are we consistently bringing down the numbers of those who reoffend. If we are not doing that, clearly we are not succeeding. In our amendment, we propose a review of the policy, which we hope could be incorporated into a more general review of sentencing.

  47
  The review will be no good if it is not linked with other parts of the penal policy that the Government say are important but where we are making slow progress. For most people, we still do not have a fully constructive regime in prison. My view is that people in prison should do, in effect, 35 or 40 hours of work a week in prison. Until we get to that figure, we are failing.
  We should support, but go further than the Government, the introduction of rehabilitative programmes for people while they are in prison—particularly for drugs and the like—and continue them in a more guaranteed way when people leave prison. All the prisoners to whom I have spoken have said that they need support when they go through those doors so they do not get back into the old habits, the old company and the old patterns of life. We need particular support for people in the years immediately after they are released, as that is when the risk is highest and when the risk assessment comes to the conclusion that they need the maximum support.
  The Home Office guidelines for home detention curfews are concerned with the right matters. We must assess whether the right people are eligible; how we calculate the sentence; what preparation there should be; who does the risk assessment, how effective it is and how it is done; what the licence conditions should be; what we say to the prisoners and what they understand by the process; what the procedures are around release and what the post-release arrangements are. That list is clear and I do not quibble with it.
  That is where the criteria set by the Conservatives for this debate are shown to be wrong. When I asked the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about the honesty in sentencing principle—which appears to be her great answer to the problems of the present system—she failed on each count to answer the three specific questions I put to her. The House will be able to read that exchange, which is clear.
  I understand, having read what the Conservatives have said on the subject in the past few months, that their policy would not mean longer sentences on average or cumulatively longer sentences in total. Nor would it mean many more people in prison. If that is the case, to pretend otherwise is to perpetrate a deception on the public.
  We also cannot support a proposal that an incoming Government would abolish the home detention curfew scheme without any proper, objective review. It has been in existence for less than two years. It has not worked perfectly, but the answer to something that might not have worked perfectly but has worked rather well is to improve it, not abolish it. It is a hasty, inappropriate and ill-researched conclusion to say that it should go.
  There is no proof that longer sentences work. Longer sentences punish more, but, as our amendment points out, almost everyone is eventually released. The scheme covers those who would be released between six months and four years later. Their sentences are shortish, and it is ludicrous to reject a scheme for their sensible, phased reintroduction into society, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out. As I have said, we must ask what works.
  It would be helpful if the Minister of State would give a considered response to the question that the Conservatives, people outside and I have asked about
  48
  whether we can now work on the basis that we have 4,000 spare prison places—even though prison governors tell me that their prisons are overcrowded and they cannot cope. I understand that any spare capacity is mostly in open prisons. If that is the case, the Government may need to review whether we are using our prison establishment appropriately. The Government could also review the categorisation of prisoners, because they might be able to reallocate prisoners more effectively. That could reduce overcrowding in some places and stop some prisons trying to do several things at once. Some are asked to act as a local prison, a prison for lifers, a prison for immigration offenders awaiting deportation and a remand prison, and it is difficult to do all those jobs at the same time. A review of the use of the prison establishment—why some prisons are overcrowded and some are comparatively under-occupied—could be appropriate and I hope that the Minister will let us know when he winds up whether the Government will consider a review of this too. It could discover whether we have a sufficient prison stock for future projections and can save lots of money by not having to build all the additional prisons, which will not be cheap.
  Let us have a coherent prison and penal policy debate, but let us not believe that being tough on crime and on the causes of crime is proved only by the punishment meted out. That is not the only test. Longer sentences do not by themselves lessen the chance of reoffending.
  Some of the Government's suggestions are out on a limb. For example, in their amendment, they suggest two policies that we believe would be unhelpful in obtaining the right balance between rehabilitation and punishment. The first is the proposal that offenders on benefits would lose their benefits. The second is the removal, at a stroke, of the right to choose jury trial, which will have no great benefit in reducing crime, or the causes of crime.
  When the Prime Minister was shadow Home Secretary, his policy became, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". That soundbite worked well then, but I hope that what has happened over the weekend has taught us that we must be equally tough on soundbite policy, and tough on the causes of soundbite policy. Policies must not be made up on the back of an envelope, or according to the latest wheeze. It would be helpful if the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition came up with fewer unsupported and insufficiently developed ideas.
  The lessons from criminal justice policy over the years are that what sounds tough often does not work, and that what works often requires a much more sophisticated balance between punishment and rehabilitation. After this debate and the events of the past few days, the arguments about criminal justice and penal policy would be best served if all parties resolved to have fewer gimmicks and to be less intent on grabbing immediate headlines. An additional benefit for the House might be that political leaders might also look a little less foolish.
  5.15pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I shall be brief, as I shall stick to the specific subject of the debate and refrain from going over all the things that have or have not gone wrong over the 30 years that I have been in the House. I declared my interest as a practising lawyer in my intervention in the speech by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I have many years of practical experience as a solicitor and a barrister.

  49
  The right hon. Lady's speech saddened me, as it combined prejudice with ignorance. It also coupled a lack of knowledge with an inability to foresee results. I do not mean that in a rude way, because the tragedy of the past 30 years is that we have failed to grapple with the simple, practical problem of why people who have been in prison commit crime again. Why has prison, supposedly such a great deterrent in the criminal justice system, failed to work?
  When I was a young man, not so very long ago, I was a primary school teacher in the poorer part of Rotherham. My headmistress told me that the father of a child in my class was in prison, and that that was a great disgrace—to the street and to everyone. However, I know of streets today in which almost every resident has been to prison at some stage. Does that mean that we have become a much more criminal society or have we failed, for reasons of expediency, to tackle the problems of why people commit crime, and of what to do with criminals?
  I fear that the answer to the second question is yes. I have heard many a speech over the past 30 years extolling the virtues of tough prison sentences and punishment, but the crime rate has not gone down. It has gone up, although it is falling again now. Even so, the prison population has risen, not fallen—so what has gone wrong?
  I concede immediately that imprisonment is necessary in certain cases. I am neither a fool, nor a soft libertarian. I believe that people who rape and rob, harm and murder should go to prison, and that prison must meet three criteria. It must be a place for punishment, rehabilitation and repayment. By the latter term, I mean that prisoners must be able to repay their debt to society.
  At present, overcrowding means that many prisons lack any form of educational provision and provide no means of rehabilitation. They fail on every conceivable score. That has not always been the case, so who is to blame for the present situation? That question immediately reopens the debate, and the slanging match about where the fault lies begins again.
  I have always found that counter-productive, even though it was I who posed the question that sent the House into a spiral earlier. I asked why the Conservative Opposition criticise prisoner releases when the previous Conservative Government a few years ago increased the amount of remission that could be earned in a sentence.
  Penal reform over the past 25 or 30 years has taken us away from the absolute deterrent of the death penalty and towards incarceration. Life sentences do not last for life, but for a set period of time. People serving a very long prison sentence are often released on parole or on licence, which contains a degree of supervision and of reintegration into society. That is a good thing.
  The judiciary would say, almost to a man, that they wish that the suspended sentence could be reintroduced tomorrow. It was a very effective sentence, with the sword of Damocles hanging over what I call the middle-range offender's head. It was a deterrent, and it worked. It was abolished, which was a mistake. I will not lay blame for that: it happened, and we must look at the reality of today.
  Remission rose from a third to a half for sentences of less than four years, although why we have that arbitrary limit of four years, I have never yet understood. Someone can receive a sentence of three years, 11 months and three weeks and get remission of a half, but someone who gets
  50
  a sentence of four years—one week longer—serves three years. The remission in that case is a third, not a half. It is an arbitrary and pointless policy which has led to resentment in the prison system, as anyone who knows anything about the subject will readily concede. I have in the past asked the Home Secretary what is the point of this arbitrary four-year line. Why cannot we reconsider that, for example?
  Home leave has been in place for a very long time; it is a means of reintegrating the long-serving prisoner towards the end of his or her sentence. We have seen the introduction of day release, work in the community and the development of open prisons. Far more development in this field could take place and with it, again, the policy of reintegrating the offender into society. If we can succeed in reintegrating the offender, we have achieved our purpose—he or she does not commit a further offence. That is good; it is what the whole thing is all about. That is how we develop our penal policy.
  On home curfew towards the end of a sentence, I heard the figure of 700 crimes—gosh, shock, horror. It is a 2 per cent. failure rate.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is 700 crimes.
  Mr. Bermingham: The right hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, throws her eyes to heaven and says "700 crimes". Did she, in her experience at the Home Office, ever look at the figures of crimes committed by those released on licence and on parole, or when they were under a suspended sentence? If those were totalled up, noughts would be added to that figure of 700. I concede, from the word go, that 700 is 700 too many. However, in terms of success and failure, in looking at things realistically, it is a 2 per cent. failure rate, or a 98 per cent. success rate. I reckon that 98 per cent. success is pretty good, bearing in mind—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has an annoying habit—[Interruption.] No, just one. She sits there and mumbles like a little furry mole stuck in a corner with its snout out of the ground. Up come the little puffs of rubbish, disseminated frequently, and taking us nowhere.
  Is someone is raped or murdered in this land, that is a horror for which there is no justification. However, no one has ever devised a policy—whether it is licence, parole or probation—that prevents all rape, all murder and all crime. How about those who commit crimes while on home leave and never come back? Despite that, we are not stopping home leave. No one will get it perfectly right.
  We should look at the overall picture. If, by and large, the system is working—and to a very large extent, it is—we can look at the ways in which we choose those who are eligible to participate, learn lessons from our failure and improve our success in the future. That is a positive way forward.
  Fair sentencing sounds wonderful. We will say to the prisoner, "You will go to prison for three years." Three years later, the door opens and out he or she comes. My experience extends across half the world. I have seen prison systems in the east and in the west, in Europe and elsewhere, and I have never yet found a system that works in that way. The one thing that a prison needs is the ability to encourage prisoners and to give them an incentive or a goal, whether that is done by remission or privileges, or a combination of the two. In that way, discipline is

  51
  retained and the progressive behaviour of the prisoner is enhanced. In other words, his or her rehabilitation is enhanced.
  If we say to prisoners that there is no hope, no matter how good they are, that is a policy of despair and disaster. It is dishonest and counter-productive; it takes us nowhere. If that is what the Opposition mean by honesty in sentencing, it is a recipe for disaster.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the view of all prison governors and their staff. They need not only an end of sentence period, but an earlier date of release period. That gives prisoners an incentive. They realise that if they behave themselves, they will get out more quickly. Without that, the job of prison staff would almost certainly be impossible everywhere.
  Mr. Bermingham: I could not agree more; that is absolutely right. That has been my experience in the conversations that I have had over the past 30 years.
  I said that I did not intend to take long, and I hope that I have not. I end as I began, by saying that we are discussing an experiment that is in its early days. To date, it has been 98 per cent. successful. That is not bad for a first shot. It is a block upon which we can build. We can develop other sentencing theories and schemes, and perhaps rehabilitation. There may come a time in the not too distant future—I suspect long after my time professionally and politically—when it can be said that it is the minority of prisoners who reoffend. We shall then have developed a penal policy that is a success and a credit to us. We have taken a step on that road. It is a long road and we have a long way to go. I wish the Government well with it.
  5.27 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Government's policy on law and order is plainly in a serious muddle. It is ill thought out. It is designed to sound tough, but in practice it is weak on real criminals. It is becoming increasingly illiberal and increasingly oppressive on the rights of the ordinary citizen who is on the margin of crime or who may find himself accused unfairly. His rights are being diminished.
  A sensible law and order policy requires a clear and consistent message which tells those who seek to make their living out of crime that crime does not pay. That message was clearly spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) during the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. Sentences for housebreaking and burglary increased. They were served for more substantial periods and the degree of housebreaking and that sort of crime fell during the period. It was a matter of cause and effect.
  We in the United Kingdom believe in a firm policy on law and order. Certainly we in the Conservative party believe in that. But the Briton, the Englishman, requires a policy that is fair. An important part of that fair policy is a fair trial by jury if the individual chooses that right, not if it is granted to him from on high by a court.
  52
  The problem with the Government is that on all matters of serious crime, what they say and what they do are different. What they are doing in practice is deceptive and weak. On the rights and freedoms of the subject, however, they are becoming oppressive and illiberal.
  This debate centres on early release and the home detention curfew. The problem is the extent to which home detention has not been used for the purpose for which it was introduced—as an alternative to custody so that borderline offenders could be kept out of prison. It is being used instead as a method by which to keep down the prison population and, thereby, to save money.
  That is deeply disillusioning to the public. How can it be otherwise if someone rightly sentenced to six months imprisonment comes out in six weeks? It is equally disillusioning when the same applies to more serious offenders; for robbery, for example, people sentenced to an average of 26.3 months are being let out in 11.4. That sends the wrong message, which dissipates the deterrent effect on criminals, which in turn results in what is happening now: the incidence of crime in areas in which it was falling under a Conservative Government is now rising under the Labour Government. The Government are making a grave mistake.
  The same error is about to be repeated in relation to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill on trial by jury. The rights of ordinary citizens will be reduced and removed. Meanwhile, serious criminals, who should be kept in prison for reasonable periods in order that the public may be protected, will serve reduced terms of imprisonment. If Home Office answers to parliamentary questions are correct, the term in prison of an average thief or handler will reduce from just under 11 months to just over 3.5 months.
  The policy is designed simply to save money. The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill is expected to save £120 million, but close questioning has revealed that the Government expect £84 million to result from reductions in periods of imprisonment among precisely the type of criminal who should be in prison—the experienced, repeat, dishonest offender who is alleged to be playing the system. Far from suffering, those criminals will serve only one third of the sentence that presently faces them. The Government's policy on trial by jury is deeply mistaken. It is relevant to this debate because it will reduce sentences for serious crimes committed by recidivist offenders from whom the public should be protected. That ought not to happen.
  The public should see that the Home Secretary's policy to prevent wrongdoers from playing the system will in fact assist wrongdoers; and, far more seriously, it will take away the centuries-old right of the people of England and Wales which is an absolute foundation of our liberties. Much is said about democracy in current jargon, and even in the European convention on human rights—in almost every article of which the word "democracy" and stipulations of what is needed in a democratic society are mentioned. However, those who enjoy the privileges of this country should never forget that one of the greatest protections of our democracy, and one of the greatest protections that our citizens enjoy against oppression and—in Lord Devlin's word—tyranny, is the fact that, when they are accused by the public prosecutor and tried in the public courts, the decision on whether they are

  53
  guilty is tempered and decided by ordinary citizens sitting in the mini-parliament of 12 good men and women and true—the English jury.
  It is that right to an English jury that this oppressive Government are setting out to reduce. One of the frightening aspects of the matter is that they are stumbling into it semi-blind; they have not thought about it. They do not believe that they are doing what I described; they think that what they are doing does not really matter, but they are wrong. They should wake up.
  There is a real place for tagging and for the home detention curfew. About half an hour ago, that matter was properly debated by the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who tried to pin down exactly which cases home detention curfew should deal with. I speak with some knowledge of and affection for the policy: I am proud that I was the first person to suggest such a scheme to the House—in 1981 during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
  The idea was sensible; it had been proposed by Hertfordshire magistrates and carefully worked up—unlike the Prime Minister's policy proposals at the weekend. The scheme was introduced in a small way through night restriction orders and, with the development of electronic tagging and scientific testing, has become much more practical. The problem—then and now—is to ensure that people will remain at home if they are given a home detention order as an alternative to custody.
  The scheme is about a tough law and order policy. My right hon. and hon. Friends—including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) who is in the Chamber—constantly tried to persuade our colleagues and the House that to be tough on law and order, one does not have to demand long sentences on every occasion. The courts must have a range of sentences and disposals—in the jargon—so that they can impose a penalty that fits the particular offence and the particular offender. I am proud that, during 18 years, we built up a fine quiverful of penalties and disposals for the range of offences met by the courts.
  Nowadays, the home detention curfew will play an increasingly important part in dealing with offenders who represent only some risk to the public. If we can be sure that they are at home and if we can give their family. the police and the probation service some opportunity to check that they are where they should be, the scheme provides a valuable penalty and disposal. It keeps people out of prison—as it is much better to do. Recidivism rates after the home detention curfew are likely to be much lower. When people go to prison, they do tend to get into colleges of crime. It would not be sensible to say that much reform is undertaken in prison; it is right to attempt reform, but difficult to succeed.
  The home detention curfew was introduced in 1991. I should be happy to see it develop—provided it is used for the right purpose. It has a real place in that quiverful of remedies. However, it is not being used rightly at present.
  I end as I began—attacking the Government for deceiving themselves and the public. The Government are not being tough; they are being soft on serious criminals and letting them out too soon. The Government are abusing—if that is not over-harsh—or misusing a remedy designed to keep borderline offenders out of prison; they are using it to help to reduce the number of people in
  54
  prison, to save money, to give a false impression, to send the wrong signal and, in the end, to weaken the criminal justice system that it is their duty to strengthen. The debate has brought that out. I commend our motion to the House.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is always a great pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on bringing this debate before the House. We do not discuss prisons sufficiently and there are a variety of reasons why we should. One is that we should be concerned by what goes on inside prison. There is plenty of scope for abuse and, unless that is subject to harsh scrutiny in the House and elsewhere, the chances are that abuses in prison will continue. Anyone who has been involved with the Prison Service knows that prison life has its unsatisfactory features that should trouble any humane and compassionate person.
  The Home Secretary reminded the House that I was the Under-Secretary responsible for prison policy in the late 1980s. At that stage, we were deeply troubled by, for example, overcrowding. I remember, too, being deeply troubled by the condition of hospitals in prisons. Some of the circumstances in which offending prisoners were kept were wholly deplorable and it is right that the House should focus as often as it can on the conditions in prison. If we do not, most assuredly, no one else will. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on introducing this debate.
  In the first instance, I shall focus on the immediate subject under discussion—the use of home detention orders. My right hon. Friend is doing me the courtesy of staying here to listen to my speech, but I know that she needs to go and I shall certainly not take it amiss if she does. However, she articulated clearly the arguments that are to be advanced against the orders, and I wish to emphasise two of them.
  First, the orders are a serious departure from honesty in sentencing, which is an important policy objective. I know perfectly well that I was a member of a Government who did not achieve that aim, but that does not mean that we should not achieve it. Broadly speaking—I shall come to the detail shortly—I am very much in favour of honesty in sentencing. It is profoundly unsatisfactory that, for sentences of up to four years, an individual can be let out of prison having served less than half the sentence.
  I find that extremely difficult to justify and I believe that the public also find it extremely difficult to justify. Although I do not argue that the public should necessarily have the determinate say on penal policy—they tend to be unduly severe—we must have a penal policy that commands public support. If the public fully understood that, under the home detention curfew order system, it is possible to release people—and very serious offenders, too—who have served less than half their sentence, there would be a serious loss of confidence.
  Such a loss of confidence would be compounded by the fact—the Home Secretary was fair in admitting this—that the process is an executive and not a judicial one. He said that, generally speaking, such decisions are made by

  55
  prison governors and I am unhappy about the fact that a prison governor is able to substitute his or her decision on the appropriate sentence to be served for that of the trial judge. I know that an offender with a sentence of up to four years may be released when he has served half the sentence, but the trial judge at least knows that fact when he or she imposes the penalty. However, in the case of the orders, an executive decision is taken by an official, namely a prison governor.
  The motives for the decision may be mixed. I do not dispute the fact that many prison governors will try to use the policy simply and solely to give a defendant a better chance of reintegrating into society. I am perfectly willing to accept that, because I have always had a high regard for prison governors. However, overcrowding is also bound to be a factor in the decision.
  I have not done any research on the matter, so I may well be wrong. However, we may find that many of the orders are made by prison governors in charge of the local prisons. The overcrowding is in local prisons, as opposed to training or open prisons. I would be very disturbed if I found a high concentration of home detention orders made by prison governors of local prisons because I would be suspicious that they were made primarily to reduce overcrowding. So, I do not like the orders in principle, partly because they depart from the principle of honesty in sentencing, and partly because they are executive decisions, and that troubles me.
  I also support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald that a number of offences have been committed by persons who have enjoyed the benefit of the orders. It is perfectly true that the failure rate—I am using jargon—is relatively low, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, but that is of precious little benefit or consolation to the victims of crimes including grievous bodily harm, robbery, burglary and rape. In one sense, the offenders might have committed the offences any way, but they would not have committed those particular offences. Therefore, the Home Secretary has some difficulty uttering reassuring words to the victims of offences committed by persons let out under such orders.
  I shall go a little further to address, as other right hon. and hon. Members have, the question of honesty in sentencing. We should move away from what is in effect automatic release—in respect of sentences of up to four years at the half-way point and thereafter at two thirds. In general, a sentence should mean what it says. If one went up and down the high street, one would find that most people felt that, broadly speaking, the sentence means what it says, and that they would be surprised to learn the extent to which it does not. That broad principle is subject to two provisos.
  I agree with the proposition that a discount needs to be earnable. I agree with what the Home Secretary said in response to my intervention—that it would be difficult to maintain order in prisons if there were no discount. Indeed, the process of discounting may have a role in integrating a person more fully into the community, where they are going in any event in almost the universality of cases. However, a discount of one half for sentences of up to four years is too much. I would like about 20 per cent. discount, with a requirement that it be earned. Discount should not be automatic; it ought to be able
  56
  readily to be withheld, which is not so now. In other words, the person seeking the discount must establish an entitlement to it.
  The other point is an overlapping one. I am sure that it is necessary for people to be released under supervision before their final release date, simply and solely to make the process of integration readier. Therefore, I strongly support the concept advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald of honesty in sentencing, but in doing so I make it subject to the two provisos that I have just articulated.
  I should like to make one other point in that connection, which concerns the question of life sentences and homicide cases. I am very attracted by one offence of homicide rather than the distinction between murder and manslaughter as in current law. I hope that, from time to time, the Government or the Opposition will address that question.
  The second and related point is this: I am also very attracted by determinant sentences for homicide cases. I am very uneasy with the concept of the life sentence, simply because it does not mean what it says. There are very few whole-life sentences. In fact, the average time served—at least in my day at the Home Office, and I do not think that it has changed much—is about 12 years. There is a strong case to be made for giving the trial judge a power to impose a determinate sentence.
  There is one problem with that which I must address, and I have not reached a final conclusion—that is, with regard to risk. At present, in life sentence cases in respect of murder, when a person has served the tariff, there is a discretion as to whether to let that person out, determined by an assessment of risk as to whether the person will reoffend. It must be accepted that the determinate sentence does not take full account of that.
  There would be a way round that, which would enable the prosecution authorities to apply to the trial judge, but there is a problem. Perhaps, at least for the present, in murder cases where the life sentence is mandatory, the solution is a different one—to give the trial judge the right to set the tariff. It would be set in open court and might be subject to appeal, but it would be a judicial act.
  I had to set tariffs. Subject to the supervening view of my right hon. Friend Lord Hurd, I set the tariff in about 600 cases. I had no inhibitions about doing so. Indeed, we ratcheted the tariffs up. I make no bones about that. However, I feel strongly that Ministers should not set the tariffs. I used to do it. Reading the documents, often late at night, I gave them as much consideration as I could, but obviously I knew but a part of what the trial judge knew.
  I did not think that that was a proper exercise for a Minister. It was capable of constituting unfairness. I suspect that, in the fullness of time, it will be struck down by the Strasbourg Court, and we would do well to anticipate that by deciding that, in murder cases with mandatory life sentences, the tariff should be set by the trial judge.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend is making interesting points, many of which I agree with, but the sentence for murder—a mandatory life sentence—requires review over a long period, and the approach to that review is inevitably part of the governance of the nation. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that,

  57
  in a sense, that is always political, and there is more wisdom than is sometimes recognised in leaving it with the Government of the day?
  Mr. Hogg: Of course, what my right hon. and learned Friend says on this matter and on all matters should be listened to with great respect. He is right for a number of reasons, one of which I think that he would emphasise: confidence in the criminal system depends, at least in part, on a response by those administering sentences to the public sense of what is right and wrong. One must concede that, oddly enough, politicians are rather better at sensing that than are judges.
  I suspect that at the back of my right hon. and learned Friend's mind is a fear that the tariffs to be set by the trial judge might be somewhat on the low side. I share that anxiety, but in the end my conclusion is that it is important that the trial judge sets the tariff. However, it is a difference of degree. We have so much in common, that I am sorry not to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend on this narrow point.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I do not disagree with him about the judge setting the tariff, providing that it is a minimum. What is important is that the overview of life sentences for the most serious offence should remain with the Government of the day, answerable democratically to the people of the country.
  Mr. Hogg: We are very close, my right hon. and learned Friend and I, on the matter. I think that I do not agree with him, but it is a matter on which two friends may disagree without any acrimony, so I hope that he will forgive me if I do not entirely accept what he said.
  I shall make two final points. The first is about the nature of imprisonment. It is extremely important that the House should go on saying that the deprivation of liberty is the penalty. I say that because, like all constituency Members, I am often approached by people who want conditions in prison to be harsh. I do not. I want conditions to be sparse and rigorous, but I do not want to dishonour people.
  The punishment lies in the deprivation of liberty, and one should not humiliate people unnecessarily. There are good pragmatic reasons for that. The first is that, if one dehumanises people, which comes from unnecessary humiliation, one yet further alienates them from the mores of society, to which they must ultimately return. Leaving aside reasons of humanity, I am pragmatically very much against that.
  Secondly and differently—this goes back to a point that I made at the beginning of my speech—if one dehumanises people, one removes the inhibitions that others have about ill-treating them. If one coops them up in extremely unsanitary conditions and generally treats them as animals, one should not be at all surprised if the prison officers misbehave towards them. For those two pragmatic reasons, I am not in favour of unnecessarily humiliating prisoners.
  That takes me to the next point, which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who spoke eloquently on the same point at the Conservative conference two years ago, I think—the need to make prison as purposeful as possible. One of the
  58
  things that struck me forcibly when I was prisons Minister and when I have gone round the prison in my constituency, Morton Hall, is the degree to which prisoners lack basic skills and social skills.
  For an enormous number of prisoners, numeracy and literacy have no meaning at all. I am very much in favour of pursuing vigorous educational programmes to the extent possible in prisons, and related to that, taking every opportunity to give prisoners skills relevant to their employment prospects in the future. That, too, needs to be done in prisons to the maximum possible extent.
  An overlapping but equally important point is that efforts should be made to get prisoners out of their cells, for association, yes, but for work as well, within the prison and sometimes—at Morton Hall it is possible—work outside the walls of the prison. Their time should be occupied in a fulfilling and purposeful way. It contributes a little to rehabilitation—I am not one of the great optimists about the prison system, but it makes a contribution.
  My final point goes to the status of the inspector of prisons. During the greater part of the time when I was prisons Minister, the inspector of prisons was Judge Tumim, who was a highly distinguished inspector of prisons. I have a high regard also for the present inspector, Sir David Ramsbotham. The status of the inspectorate of prisons is important, and I do not want it to be in any way downgraded or its authority or status diluted.
  The truth is—this goes back to a point that I made earlier—that there is too little external insight into the way in which prisons are run. We are greatly indebted to the boards of visitors. I used to read the report of the board of visitors in respect of every prison when I received it. The boards of visitors are valuable and have an important role to play, but it is not a sufficient role, partly because they spend a considerable time working with a particular prison, which means that their experience and judgment is focused on that prison and does not necessarily have the wider perspective that I would wish.
  I know perfectly well that reports from the inspector of prisons can be extremely embarrassing to the prisons Minister. I must have had 20 reports while I was prisons Minister, and from time to time I was, indeed, embarrassed by what Judge Tumim stated. We were called upon to answer his criticisms. I would say to the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), that, although it is tiresome and one may be embarrassed at the time, for goodness sake, take a broad view.
  Let us recognise that prisons are places where abuses can happen only too readily, and where they are never discovered. I hope that nothing will be done to undermine the authority, status or importance of the inspector of prisons. Above all, his office should not be merged with the inspectorate of probation. That would undermine and dilute it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has returned. That is most kind. I congratulate her on introducing the debate. When she is responsible for implementing penal policy, could we please have regular debates on the prisons?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Hogg: That is reassuring. Will she also ensure that we get rid of the home detention curfew order scheme?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Hogg: The answer is yes. Subject to my proviso, which she did not hear, but can read, will she be careful to ensure honesty in sentencing?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Hogg: I know that my right hon. Friend attaches great importance to making prison life purposeful through education and work. I am sure that it will be one of her priorities.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Hogg: Finally, my right hon. Friend should maintain the status, importance and authority of the inspector of prisons.
  Miss Widdecombe: Hmm.
  Mr. Hogg: Yes! That is all I wish to say.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The main purpose of the debate is to discuss early release from prison in England and Wales. However, this Parliament covers the United Kingdom, and it is important to bring to the House a perspective on the early release of prisoners from the Celtic fringe, as it were. I listened to the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on early release and large amounts of remission. I also listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on the same subject. Both appeared to believe remission should be earned. I suggest to the Minister that, regardless of the amount of remission, it should be earned more easily by a first offender who is serving his first prison sentence than by a chap who is serving a second or a third term and proving himself to be a persistent offender and professional criminal.
  I hope that those who are in prison for the first time for lesser offences might be less willing to go back, and could have an early release target towards which to work. Thereafter, there should be harsher honesty about sentencing and remission. Folks should know that if they return to prison for the second, third or fourth time, it will be more difficult to get out early than it was the first time around.
  I want to consider the consequences of the early release of prisoners that resulted from the Belfast agreement. We have heard that the Government have seen fit to grant early release to some 20,000 convicted criminals on the mainland, including drug dealers and traffickers, robbers, burglars, violent offenders, sex offenders and God knows what other sort of offender. The motion does not mention murderers. However, for anyone from Northern Ireland, the debate is a case of, "I've heard all this before; I've been there, done that."
  I can give the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) some good news: early release of prisoners in Northern Ireland means that there
  60
  will be many unemployed prison officers in Northern Ireland and two empty prisons of which good use could be made. It might be a little far to go to visit prisoners, but the accommodation is there. If the number of prisoners and misbehaviour is decreasing, use of Northern Ireland prisons for mainland prisoners would be a short-term answer. However, it would be useful, and would save money that would otherwise be expended on building a new prison on this side of the Irish sea.
  As hon. Members will recall, the Belfast agreement was sold to the people of Northern Ireland as the answer to all their problems. Under the terms of the agreement, all terrorist prisoners—who are in a slightly different category from the prisoners that we have been discussing, but nevertheless wind up in prisons—were to be released in two years, no matter what their crime. Those two years end in four weeks. At the end of that time, every person convicted of terrorist murder up to a specific date will be out. We were told that peace and tranquillity would ensue if those mass murderers were released from prison and permitted to roam the streets freely. "Freely" is the operative word because none has something attached to his ankle to enable him to be watched. They are out, full stop. They are not electronically tagged.
  The news for the people of Northern Ireland was not all bad. During the referendum campaign in 1998, the Prime Minister appeared in Coleraine in my constituency. He gave five handwritten pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, and asked them to vote for the agreement on that basis. I cannot stress enough the importance of those pledges to many Unionist people who were prepared to give the agreement a chance—wrongly, I believed. Those folk believed the Prime Minister when he promised them that those who threatened or used violence would be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland and that prisoners would be kept in prison unless violence was given up for good.
  When I dealt with a terrorist organisation, I did not believe in Santa Claus. I rarely believe it when a Government promise Santa Claus. Experience has taught us that those pledges, like so many from the Government, are merely the product of a highly sophisticated spin machine. The Government seem to us to have no clearer policy or strategic vision than to buy off terrorist organisations and to see themselves through whatever dominates the news headlines. They give no thought to the long-term consequences for the citizens who must live with them.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the intelligence reports that I have seen from time to time, which suggest that several terrorist prisoners who have been released early have since joined the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. What does that say about recidivism?
  Mr. Ross: I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman pre-empted me by a few moments.
  The Government did not give detailed, comprehensive thought to the effects of creating circumstances in which a well-organised terrorist structure could claim success in getting prisoners out before they had completed their sentences. That unquestionably happened. Hundreds of such people from both sides of the community have benefited from early release.

  61
  The first releases took place on 11 September 1998. Those released include some of the most violent criminals that the United Kingdom has ever had to tackle. For example, the IRA Brighton bomber, Patrick Magee, was one of them—even the Home Secretary had reservations about releasing him early. Sean Kelly, who murdered nine people in the explosion in a fish shop on the Shankill road, was released early. That is only the IRA side. On the loyalist side, the men who murdered eight people in the Rising Sun bar in Greysteel, again in my constituency, will soon be released, if they are not already out. It cannot have escaped hon. Members' notice that the recent tension in the Shankill road has not been helped by the release of the area's former UFF commander. That also happened under the terms of the Belfast agreement.
  It seems to the people of Northern Ireland that those people who have been released early are the untouchables in the criminal structures of Northern Ireland. Two weeks ago, a bomb exploded in the garden shed of a house in Ballymurphy. There are strong rumours that one of the individuals involved is the IRA quartermaster for the area, who is out on early release. Several months ago, a car carrying a bomb was intercepted near Lisburn. One of those involved was also an IRA man on early release. During an Orange order parade the weekend before last, two IRA commanders, out on early release, were spotted stoning the RUC.
  In Northern Ireland, early release has aided the growth of a mafia sub-culture, which is steadily increasing. Legitimate business men are faced with demands for money from people who have literally got away with murder. Such demands have been made for a long time, but they are now more subtle. When a convicted killer who has served his two-year sentence walks into someone's shop or business and requests a donation to his cause, or suggests that he provides the doorman for his bar or nightclub, what should that person do? Does he go to the police who, seemingly, often cannot help? He can try to ignore that killer, but that is not a wise policy—or he can do as the Government have done and simply surrender to the demands.
  This has all come about as the result of a completely wrong reading of the situation. When I look at the system of early release of prisoners on the mainland in the light of my own experience, I wonder whether we are not taking too soft a line with many of the people involved. The real tragedy of Northern Ireland is that, rather than try to ensure that terrorists conform to the normal standards of democratic behaviour—namely, to respect the rule of law and the decision of the ballot box—the Government have sought to turn logic on its head and accept the terrorists' propaganda. They are now trying to persuade the law-abiding majority that it is acceptable for murderers to sit as Ministers, for decisions on the police force to rely on the good behaviour of the very criminals and murderers whom that same police force has fought for 30 years, and for vast terrorist arsenals to remain under the control of those terrorist organisations.
  Since some of the dumps in the Republic of Ireland have been inspected, I assume that the whereabouts of such weapons is now known. If not, our security forces, never mind those in the Republic, are failing in their duty. I therefore hope that they will act properly and pick up those weapons. In Northern Ireland, the results of the early release of prisoners are plain for everyone to see. The RUC is demoralised and saying to itself, "Why bother
  62
  to catch them?" That exists in a lesser form on this side of the Irish sea. In Northern Ireland, there is a rejuvenated criminal class, drugs and spiralling crime rates and an increasingly angry and frightened populace. It is hard for parents and teachers to teach children and young people the difference between right and wrong when one of the principal wrongdoers is now the Minister of Education and when they can see people who have literally got away with murder walking the streets.
  Early release has massive implications for the criminal justice system. If someone can shoot eight innocent people dead in a bar because they believe them to be Roman Catholics, or blow up nine innocent people in a fish shop because they believe them to be Protestants, and then, after being caught, be released after serving less than two years for such mass murder, how can we possibly decide a reasonable tariff for a thief or a burglar? Early release has been a disaster in Northern Ireland. It was misconceived there and is equally misconceived here, because it lets criminals off too lightly and forgets that there is not only a rehabilitation but a payment to be made for crime. It is therefore an insult to the victims of crime. The sentences of innocent victims cannot be reduced. Why, therefore, should there be a reduction of sentence, except in limited circumstances, for those who do the injuring?
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) who, of course, is right: the purpose of prison is not only to punish and rehabilitate, but to protect people from crimes that criminals might commit if they were not in prison. As he said, in Northern Ireland terrorists have left prison early, joined Real IRA and Continuity IRA and committed terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and on the mainland of Great Britain.
  It is a privilege to speak in this debate as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am the only Committee member here today, although that is not the result of my colleagues' negligence—they are off on a visit to Europe, examining the integrity of ports in respect of asylum seekers and others trying to enter the United Kingdom. The Government's policy on asylum seekers demonstrates the Home Office's effectiveness on that, as does its policy on early releases. The Government have become notorious for the use of spin, re-launching existing policies and announcing new sums of money which, time and time again—as a little examination demonstrates—double, treble or quadruple the actual amounts that are given.
  In considering whether we are soft on asylum seekers and why they seek out this country, the Home Affairs Committee visited Sangette, on the outskirts of Calais, where we saw 600 or 700 asylum seekers living in the most appalling conditions. Those who spoke English told us that they had travelled across Europe from locations as varied as Iraq, Kurdistan, Iran and Syria.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the title of the debate is "Prisoners (Early Release)". I should be grateful if he would direct his remarks to that.
  Mr. Fabricant: I was going to point out a continuity, as those people had the sole objective of coming to the

  63
  United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I shall answer the hon. Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), who question why I am raising the issue—not that they have participated in the debate. There is a continuity, as the Government try to claim that they are achieving many things, but they have not achieved anything on crime and punishment in this country. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked the Home Secretary two questions to which we still have not had a proper answer. The first question was, where are the 4,000 prison places that are now available? The Home Secretary tried to answer, but could not reach the figure of 4,000.
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked another question that he could not answer—perhaps, in fairness, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked him several questions. However, I shall repeat it in the hope that the Minister may be able to answer it in his summing-up. How many double cells are now occupied by three prisoners? That follows on from points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who pointed out that prison conditions are important too. As I said in my opening remarks, prison should be a place in which rehabilitation can take place, perhaps, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, through the acquisition of new skills.
  The Home Secretary tried to maintain that our support for electronic tagging somehow allowed the use of the home detention curfew scheme. The two do not go together, and it is not right and proper that a tagging system should mean that people can leave prison early. Indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, to ensure discipline in prisons, there should be a system of rewards as well as punishments for prisoners' behaviour.
  Clearly, a system of reward, as well as allowing prisoners to perform certain functions in prison that they might not otherwise be allowed to perform, should include the reward of early release. I am inclined to follow the argument presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that early release should amount to perhaps only 20 per cent. of the prison sentence set down by the judge. A 50 per cent. release is certainly not fair and is not safe for society, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry pointed out.
  It is worth bearing in mind that between the introduction of the scheme on 28 January last year and 30 April this year, more than 20,000 convicted prisoners were released early. They were not released early for light crimes, as the Home Secretary referred to them: 53 people had committed manslaughter; six, attempted murder; and 2,562 wounding, aggravated bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Most awful of all, in some respects, 2,767 had been sentenced to prison for drug dealing; 23 for cruelty to children; 20 for sex offences; 1,887 for burglary; 811 for robbery; 237 for violent disorder, and 535 for affray.
  Perhaps if those convicted prisoners had learned their lesson and society was now safe from them, that would be justification, yet 700 prisoners on special early release have breached the conditions of their curfew and 40 have disappeared and remain unlawfully at large. Nearly
  64
  400 of those released on the scheme have committed further offences—offences that they would not otherwise have been able to commit had they still been in prison. They include two rapes, five threats to kill, 119 offences of burglary, theft and robbery and 43 assaults.
  We should remind ourselves that those offences were committed by people who could not have committed them had they still been serving a prison sentence, yet what does the Home Secretary say? He has said:
  the introduction of home detention curfew has been remarkably successful.
  That is no remarkable success.
  It is not my intention to speak at length. The Government have been successful up to now in one thing and one thing only: playing with the imaginations of the electorate by launching and relaunching initiatives and by doublilkng, tripling and quadrupling the money available for those initiatives, at least in the imagination. However, like the little boy who cried wolf once too often, Ministers are finding that they are no longer believed. Even their core supporters can see that the Government score full marks only on rhetoric, but continue to fail in delivery, as we have heard in this debate on crime and punishment.
  The early release scheme is a clear demonstration that, far from being tough on crime, as is the case with asylum the Government and the Home Secretary are regarded as a soft touch by criminals. He does not deter them. To the majority of people who are law abiding and just want justice to be done and our streets to be safe, that is unforgivable. Criminal sentences must be just, but sufficiently harsh to deter future criminal acts. They must succeed wherever possible in rehabilitation, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, and must keep criminals away from society if they are unwilling to abide by the decent rules of society. The Government and the Home Secretary have failed the British people on all four counts.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. David Ruffleythe scheme, the more I realise that it could be described as the camel that broke the Straw's back because it is nothing less than a disgrace. We know—the prisons Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), has told the House—that it is possible for those sentenced to six months to get out in just six weeks because the scheme means that a prisoner can be released up to two months earlier than would otherwise be the case.
  That raises interesting questions on the whole issue of honesty in sentencing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have been very clear over the past weeks and months about the need for radical reform, so that there is honesty in sentencing. The scheme that is before us makes a bad situation considerably worse.
  The figures do not make happy reading. There are some chilling statistics on the period between the introduction of the scheme in January 1999 and 30 April this year. The following number of people have been let out early under the home detention curfew scheme: 53 who were convicted of manslaughter; six who were convicted of attempted murder; a staggering 2,767 who were convicted

  65
  of drug dealing; 20 who were convicted of sex offences; 811 who were convicted of robbery; and 237 who were convicted of violent disorder.
  The question that we have must ask is: did the Government intend that? Looking at the record and the comments of the Home Secretary, we are forced to conclude that they did not. He said:
  We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever.—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 27.]
  The statistics that I have alluded to make it clear beyond peradventure that he was being economical with the truth when he made that statement. As such, he should apologise to the House for making it.
  It is true, as my hon. Friends have said, that Labour acts soft, but talks tough. I am reminded of the comments by the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), when putting forward the scheme:
  Prison is the right place for those who have committed serious crimes.
  However, the facts show that those committing serious crimes—sexual offences, manslaughter, attempted murder—are being let out on the scheme.
  The Conservative position is simple and straightforward, as we would expect from this Conservative Front-Bench team. We have common-sense policies. Our common-sense policy on electronic tagging is that it should be used not as a mechanism of early release, but as a form of punishment in its own right. Therefore, we will not have any nonsense about our support for electronic tagging. Where we have suggested that it may be a useful disposal, it is in connection with punishment, not early release.
  I often read that great work of fiction, which is worthy of entry into the next Booker prize contest. It is the called the Labour party manifesto 1997. It promised a "battle against drugs" and
  a commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs in our communities.
  We look at that at face value and then see the statistics disclosed under the scheme. As I have reported, that Government initiative has allowed 2,700-plus convicted drug dealers to be let out.
  I could go on. In fact, I will. The manifesto said that
  the police have our full support.
  Those are warm words from the Labour party, but more than 100 criminals convicted of assaulting our police officers and of resisting arrest have been let out early after serving less than half their sentences. I give another example. The Government talk toughly about toughening sentences for causing death by dangerous driving and they want to increase it to a life tariff. The Minister of State, Home Office, The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said that
  the public have a right to expect…long and heavy sentences.
  They do, but they do not expect it from this Government because 126 dangerous drivers who have killed on the roads have been let out early under the scheme.
  I am surprised that Ministers show their faces. It is not difficult to understand why their Back Benchers have not bothered to show their faces today. It is an absolute disgrace that they have not been willing to be here.
  66
  Even Millbank has been unwilling to page them and to tell them to come to the House to defend their own Government's policy.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is worse than that? Not only are Labour Back Benchers not here now, but only one bothered to take part in what is an important debate.
  Mr. Ruffley: Labour Back Benchers are frit and we know why. It is a disgraceful piece of law and order policy and it will be judged as such at the next election by my constituents. In the aftermath of the Tony Martin case, they saw the robustness and clarity of the Conservative party position as articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the Leader of the Opposition, and the pathetic, lily-livered, duplicitous talk and triple counting by the Government. We even heard Labour rubbish about "more money" for rural constabularies. My Suffolk constabulary has yet to hear any firm details in the wake of the furore that was created on the back of the Tony Martin judgment.
  I shall give another example of how the Home Secretary talks about being tough on violent crime. We all read the spin that Labour put into the public domain to soften the bad news when it finally hit us, which is that violent crime has increased and is getting worse under this Government. We know why: fewer police officers and the soft, woolly minded, sandal-wearing policy of Home Office Ministers. They have no claim to be the custodians of proper, tough and effective law and order in this country.
  I shall quote another statistic. I hope that the Minister can deal with it—probably not, if experience is anything to go by. The Home Secretary called for tougher sentences for street robbers in the light of the rise in violent crime, but he has let out more than 800 convicted robbers early under the special release scheme.
  There is confusion in prisons policy. I am glad that at least one Minister has decided to turn up for this debate; it happens to be the prisons Minister—the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). Perhaps, in his summing up, he will tell us how he will be able to afford the burgeoning prison population. At the end of December 1999, the prison population was 62,060 and the certified normal accommodation—the prison capacity with no overcrowding—was 62,480. Some 17.8 per cent. of those prisoners were on remand. Projections based on those statistics show that the trend is upwards. If the custody rate and sentence length remain at 1999 levels, the projected prison population will be 70,400 by 2007—in the unlikely event that a Labour Government are running law and order then. If the custody rates and sentence lengths increase, the figure is predicted to be as high as 80,300.
  The Minister has probably been doing his best with the Treasury to fund Home Office policy, but we want more money for our police, and he should tell us whether he has the money to fund the increase in the prison population. If he has not, the policy is more of a shambles than it first appears.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: It is always very interesting to discover what has been going on while a debate has been in progress. It is of particular note that

  67
  we have some more up-to-date figures on the number of people released under the home detention curfew scheme. Those figures were released in a written answer at 3.30 this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I shall return to those figures later. It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), but I have to tell him that the figures are worse than those that he mentions.
  In response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the Home Secretary said that the Government would introduce a proposal on the Prime Minister's much vaunted announcement about on-the-spot fines as soon as there was legislative time, but despite that fact, this evening's BBC news reported that No. 10 Downing street is now saying that the idea of on-the-spot fines has been dropped. It has spun off into oblivion, so what price the Home Secretary's response to my hon. Friend now?
  I do not think that the Home Secretary has the guts to try to explain away the fact that that policy has spun off into oblivion between 4 o'clock this afternoon and 6 o'clock this evening. What has happened to the policy, which, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, must have puzzled the theologians of Tubingen? It reminds me of the nursery rhyme about Solomon Grundy that we all learned as children. We now find that Labour policy is born on a Friday and buried on a Monday. Undoubtedly, we shall see much more spinning, angels dancing on the point of a pin and the Minister's usual sophistry to try to explain away that policy.
  I turn to some of the serious points that have been made. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the Home Secretary said that he would tell those who sadly and tragically have been the victims of rape committed by someone who was released on home detention curfew that it is "better to manage the transition from custody to the community" of the criminal. Frankly, that is a disgrace. Are the Government concerned about law-abiding citizen or the criminal?
  All the Home Secretary's words suggested that the Government are far more concerned about better managing the criminal's transition from custody to the community, but we on this side of the House are more concerned about the law abiding. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the routine of someone who should be serving a custodial sentence in full, but has been released early on home detention curfew, may involve drug dealing from home.
  I shall now deal with the figures that were announced in a written answer after the start of the debate. The Government said that they would be
  "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime",
  but in which group of offences have the largest number of offenders been released on home detention curfew? We had the figures to the end of April; we now have the figures to the end of May, and drug offenders comprise the largest group. No fewer than 3,480 of those convicted of drugs offences have been released, including 122 offenders whose convictions were for the production of drugs and 1,156 whose offence was the supply of
  68
  drugs—the most serious drugs offence of all. Some 1,476 had been convicted of possession with intent to supply and 462 with possession. No fewer than 222 of those who have been released early have been involved in the unlawful import or export of drugs, so international drug smugglers are being released early.
  Home detention curfews are not a sensible alternative. We know that the Government say that they regard that policy as a success, but they should tell that to the victims of the criminals who have been released early. The victims do not accept that; the public will not accept it, and neither will we.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, as recently as November 1999, the Home Secretary said:
  We have no plans or intention whatever to provide for electronic tagging to facilitate the early release of serious or sexual offenders. Let me make that clear, with a full stop—none whatever"—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 27.]
  That was long after the Select Committee report, although the Home Secretary claimed that its members knew all about what the Government had in mind. Of course they did not. As late as last November, long after the report, the Home Secretary told the House that the Government had no plans to apply the scheme to serious or sexual offences.
  I shall quote the number of sexual offenders who have been released under the scheme in direct contravention of what the Home Secretary told the House. Nineteen offenders convicted of indecent assault, one of unlawful sexual intercourse and one of buggery have been released. Those figures completely undermine what the Home Secretary said as recently as last November.
  I shall deal with one or two of the other contributions to the debate. We agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the need for constructive work to be done in prison. He is well aware that Coldingley prison, which is in my constituency, is an extremely good example of a prison where constructive work is done. I know that the Minister has visited it and, while considering legislation in Committee, we have agreed that we want to encourage such prisons, but there is no purpose in releasing people under the scheme and denying them the opportunity to take part in constructive work in prison when their offences should justify a lengthy custodial sentence.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that longer sentences do not lessen the risk of reoffending. That may be true, but we on these Benches say that offenders cannot commit offences while they are in custody. He said that there should be fewer headline-grabbing initiatives. Perhaps that applied particularly to the one to which the Prime Minister referred last Friday, which has already been dropped. We need to be concerned about the protection of the public: once sentenced by a judge to a substantial custodial sentence, a person ought to serve that sentence. There should be honesty in sentencing.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: May I ask a follow-up question? Given that, at the moment, almost everybody sentenced to prison is released, do the Conservatives believe that more people should be sentenced to prison with no chance of ever being released?
  Mr. Hawkins: That simply does not address the issue of home detention curfew, which is what we are

  69
  discussing, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a canard that has no relevance to the debate. We have said that there should be honesty in sentencing and that the sentence imposed by the judge, which the public believe will protect them, should be served.
  I refer to some of the remarks made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. From his great experience as a former Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out that the Government's law and order policy is in a mess, saying that although the Government sound tough, in practice the policies are weak and designed to save taxpayers' money. Reducing periods spent in prison, especially for the serious offender, saves the Treasury money, but does not protect the public.
  My right hon. and learned Friend spoke with particular authority. In 1981, during the debates in Committee on what became the Criminal Justice Act 1982, he was the first person to suggest a type of curfew scheme, which those in Hertfordshire who pioneered the idea called the night restriction order. He pointed out that it was intended for borderline offenders who might not get custodial sentences. It was never intended for serious offenders, to whom the Government are now applying it.
  My right hon. and learned Friend also pointed out that over our 18 years in government we built up what he described as a fine quiverful of disposals and sentences that are open to the courts. By using the policy as an Executive act, the Home Secretary has undermined the integrity of sentencing judges and magistrates in the court. That is the most serious condemnation of the Government.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who always makes a powerful speech to the House, supported honesty in sentencing and talked about the need for the public to feel that sentences are appropriate. He stressed that the problem with home detention curfews as the Government use them is that they represent an Executive decision, which departs from the principle of honesty in sentencing, and made a powerful call for moving to a sentence discount of no more than 20 per cent. and for that discount to be earned with good behaviour and work in prison.
  My right hon. and learned Friend also made the important point that so many prisoners, as I know from my own experience at the Bar, lack basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. Therefore, one needs to provide incentives and to try to ensure that prisoners are asked to do worthwhile work in prison.
  In an extremely powerful speech, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) called for a tough approach to those who have committed the most serious offences—in particular, terrorist offences in Northern Ireland—and drew parallels with what happens in Ulster. He knows that we on these Benches have repeatedly called for an end to early releases until there is actual surrender of guns and explosives and he is aware that we strongly support what he said about that: too many concessions were made to the terrorists and too soft a line has been taken.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, based on their highly sophisticated spin machine and to get over the short-term difficulties, the Government made promises without giving any thought to the long-term consequences for law-abiding citizens. I say to him that that is true not only in relation to Ulster. Sadly, the Government cause the same problems—spin as opposed to substance—on the
  70
  mainland. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) drew attention to the double counting and the re-announcement of Government policies with which we are so familiar in this policy area as in so many others.
  The Home Secretary made desperate stabs into political history to try to bolster his argument, but got into trouble when he talked about the so-called vacant prison places. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out the difference between certifiable normal capacity and usable operational capacity. Just like the initiative for on-the-spot fines, we know that that is another matter that the Prime Minister has completely misunderstood. On home detention curfew as on so many other law and order policies, we can be absolutely certain that what is vacant and certifiable is Labour policy.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We can be equally clear that crime doubled under the Conservatives while the number of criminals convicted by the courts fell by a third. That is the base from which we were required to move. Protecting the public and ensuring that we use prisons as an opportunity to address the underlying causes of offending with far greater success than the Opposition ever managed when they had stewardship of these matters are at the heart of what we seek to achieve. Therefore, it is disappointing that the Opposition have chosen to use this, their day, in such a way.
  Let us not forget that today is the Opposition's day, not ours. We do not have to come into the Chamber to listen to them, but when one considers who turned up to listen to whom, it is interesting that the maximum number present on their side when Opposition spokespersons were not speaking was four on my count. Indeed, at one time they were outnumbered by Ulster Unionist Members, so let us be clear about who attended the debate.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I have no intention of doing so.
  Let us be clear: despite all the shilly-shallying and all the ranting and raving that we have heard from the Opposition, they cannot get away from the fact that the overwhelming majority of those placed on the home detention scheme have successfully completed their curfew. The overwhelming majority have not offended on curfew and the scheme has helped thousands of short-term prisoners to make the difficult transition back into the community. That is what it was designed to do—that was its purpose—and it is better to protect the public by ensuring that we better manage the transition of offenders from custody into the community.
  Let us have a brief look at where all this began. The home detention curfew scheme was universally approved, without dissension, by the all-party Home Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) put his signature to its report and no amount of slithering and sliding can get him away from that fact. His fingerprints are all over the report—we do not need DNA to tell us that. Furthermore, I have here a record of the debate of 8 April 1998, in which he spoke. He had this to say:
  I particularly welcome the provisions on electronic tagging.—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 417.]

  71
  There it is. He cannot say that he did not know—it was all in the Bill and it received not just a welcome, but a particular welcome.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of the news that the Prime Minister has announced that there will not be on the spot fines, has the Home Secretary said that he wishes to make a statement in that regard?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of those matters. In any case, it is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Boateng: Even the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was better than that intervention, and that is saying something.
  We need to be clear that the home detention curfew scheme is just one of the many measures that we have introduced to help prepare prisoners for release, as part of our strategy for reducing reoffending and protecting the public.
  Some good points have been made in this afternoon's debate. One was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who spoke of the importance of ensuring that we take care to reflect on what we do in prisons to address recidivism. That point was taken up with some force by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who endorsed the Government's approach on this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about how, on occasion, he was "deeply troubled" by the failure of his Government and the Prison Service better to address that issue. Well, we have been addressing the issue. We have been applying additional resources to addressing basic skills in literacy and numeracy, which were neglected for 18 years by the previous Conservative Government. It has taken a Labour Government to begin to address those deficits.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If I may finish the point that I am making, the right hon. Lady can then make her point in her own inimitable fashion.
  We are spending additional resources: £26 million has gone into education—basic literacy and numeracy skills—to address the causes of offending. That is money that was never spent by the Conservative Government when they had stewardship of the Prison Service. Now, without costing their proposals, they seek to renege on their previous commitment to developing a penal policy that would have recognised the benefits that the home detention curfew scheme presents in terms of better protecting the public by better managing the transition from prison into the community.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm one very simple fact: that under our stewardship of the Prison Service, purposeful activity rose to a peak of 26 hours, whereas it is now down to below 23 hours? How on earth is that developing prisoners' potential?
  Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Lady knows, because in her serious moments she has done some serious thinking
  72
  on the issue, that the definition of purposeful activity is seriously flawed. In fairness, she will admit that. She also knows that, by any definition, this Government are spending more money on, and devoting more energy and resources to, basic literacy and numeracy than her Government ever did. [Interruption.] All the baying in the world cannot get over that basic fact.
  Let us go back to the subject of home detention curfews. We have not sought to renege on that in the course of our stewardship of the Prison Service. It is but one element of our overarching strategy for reducing reoffending and protecting the public—one important element. However, let us examine what we need to do and should be doing better to protect the public, and what we are doing. A basic part of the structure of the home detention curfew scheme is the better assessment of risk, the reduction of risk and the managing of risk after release.
  The Government are addressing the long outstanding issue of the partnership that needs to exist between the Prison Service and the probation service. That partnership was not in place under the Conservative Government, but it is now in place and the public are better protected for it.
  In their consideration of these issues, the Opposition have failed to recognise the importance of ensuring that the criminal justice system as a whole works better. We need a Crown Prosecution Service, a court service, a probation service, a Prison Service and a police service that work in ways that are better designed to reduce the impact of reoffending and to protect the public. Importantly, they must also be based on recognition of the vital role that can be played by the home detention curfew scheme in terms of the transition from prison into the community.
  It really is disappointing that, on a day on which the Conservative Opposition should have addressed the real issues—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have."] No; I mean the issues that show that it is possible to do as we have done, effectively to redress the impact of burglary and vehicle crime, and to take measures that have led domestic burglary and vehicle crime to fall. That is our record. Under the Conservatives' stewardship of the criminal justice system, crime doubled and the number of criminals convicted by the courts fell by a third.
  This Government are reversing the fall in police numbers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way when I have finished this point.
  Our crime fighting fund is providing the police with an extra 5,000 recruits over this financial year and the next. Under the previous Government's stewardship of the police service, the number of police officers fell. That is the record, and we are in the process of reversing that.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Boateng: No; let me finish. Opposition Members hate being—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are far too many sedentary interventions. The Minister has said that he will give way, but not at the moment.
  Mr. Boateng: The Opposition hate to hear about their record in government. This Government's actions include

  73
  the home detention curfew scheme, the crime fighting fund and £180 million spent on CCTV schemes. We have paid attention to anti-social behaviour, with the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders, which the Opposition opposed. It is this Government who, time and again, have taken the hard decisions. We have addressed the basic causes of offending and created a real partnership between the police, the probation service and the Prison Service.
  It is our Government who will deliver increased numbers of police and steadily falling reconviction rates for offences such as burglary and vehicle crime. We will succeed with our policies in better protecting the public. That is why we must oppose the motion that the Conservatives have proposed. I ask the House to support our amendment and to oppose the Conservative motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided:Ayes 137, Noes 319.

  Division No. 245]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Green, Damian

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baldry, Tony

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Key, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chope, Christopher

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Day, Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Flight, Howard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence

  74

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. John Randall and

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Barnes, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Barron, Kevin

  Colman, Tony

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cotter, Brian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cousins, Jim

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Crausby, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darvill, Keith

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

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

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brake, Tom

  Denham, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burstow, Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Caborn Rt Hon Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clapham, Michael

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Follett, Barbara

  75

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foulkes, George

  Lock, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Love, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mclsaac. Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacShane, Denis

  Grogan, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWilliam, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Harvey, Nick

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meale, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hope, Phil

  Moore, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keetch, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kidney, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rendel, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roy, Frank

  76

  Ruane, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tyler, Paul

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Webb, Steve

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar, John

  Squire Ms Rachel

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Starkey Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Willis, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wood, Mike

  Stringer, Graham

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woolas, Phil

  Stunell, Andrew

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  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):—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 153.

  Division No. 246]

  [7.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barron, Kevin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Battle, John

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clapham, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Colman, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Crausby, David

  77

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Darvill, Keith

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kemp, Fraser

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Kidney, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Efford, Clive

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lock, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fisher, Mark

  McCabe, Steve

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  McWilliam, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Meale, Alan

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Grogan, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hanson, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Healey, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heppell, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hesford, Stephen

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Olner, Bill

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pike, Peter L

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pond, Chris

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hurst, Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Illsley, Eric

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  78

  Raynsford, Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Soley, Clive

  Wills, Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Winnick, David

  Spellar, John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wood, Mike

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wyatt, Derek

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Stringer, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Faber, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brady, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brake, Tom

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Breed, Colin

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gill, Christopher

  Burnett, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burstow, Paul

  Gray, James

  Butterfill, John

  Green, Damian

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clappison, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Collins, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  79

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Ruffley, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tredinnick, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tyler, Paul

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Madel, Sir David

  Viggers, Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Walter, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Waterson, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Webb, Steve

  Moore, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Willetts, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Willis, Phil

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Rendel, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. John Randall and

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the introduction of Home Detention Curfew with electronic tagging as in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was specifically welcomed in the unanimous Third Report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Session 1997–98 (HC 486-I), whose members endorsing the report at that time included the honourable Members for Woking, Surrey Heath and Aldershot; believes that one of the major factors contributing to re-offending is an inadequate transition between custody and life outside prison in the community; applauds the work initiated by HM Government better to manage that transition, through Home Detention Curfew, more effective drug treatment, Welfare to Work and greater emphasis on education, work and offender behaviour programmes; notes that short term prisoners are only released on Home Detention Curfew after a careful risk assessment, that about 94 per cent. of prisoners have completed Home Detention Curfew successfully, and that the latest information indicates that fewer than 2 per cent. have been arrested, prosecuted or convicted for offences committed on Home Detention Curfew; applauds the Government's toughening of the sentencing regime, its practical approach to honesty in sentencing, and its establishment of a comprehensive review of the sentencing framework; and further notes the Opposition's action in opposing strong measures against anti-social behaviour, benefit sanctions for probation offenders and reform of mode of trial, comforting only the miscreant at the expense of the victim and the community.

  Neill Committee (Ministers and Special Advisers)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the recommendations in the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, "Reinforcing Standards", concerning Ministers and Special Advisers; regrets that the Government has failed to respond to that report; notes that the Prime Minister will not accept responsibility for adjudicating on the compliance of Ministers with the Ministerial Code of Conduct; further notes that the number and cost of Special Advisers continue to increase; believes that Ministers should be accountable for conflicts of interest and failures to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Ministerial Code of Conduct; further believes that the number, and activities, of Special Advisers is prejudicing the impartiality of the Civil Service and accountability of government; and calls upon the Government to accept in full the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in relation to Ministers and Special Advisers.
  It would not have been necessary for the Opposition to table this motion if the Prime Minister and the Government had responded promptly and positively to the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was published in January, and particularly to the recommendations on the ministerial code of conduct and special advisers. As it is, far from there being a positive response to the Committee's recommendations, we have seen further evidence of the Government's arrogant disregard for standards in public life, which they claim to have been elected to uphold.
  On 7 May 1997, the Prime Minister told the parliamentary Labour party that Labour was not elected
  to enjoy the trappings of power but to do a job and uphold the highest standards in public life—[Interruption.]
  That reaction from Opposition Members clearly illustrates my point—that such a remark would be farcical if it were not so tragic for the public interest.
  We did not need Lady Richard's diaries to know that, from the outset, Ministers were more determined to secure their privileges and perks than to deliver on their election promises. However, Ministers' petty pursuit of privileges and perks is not the point of this debate. The purpose of this motion and the debate is to press the Government, particularly the Prime Minister, to take responsibility for Ministers' compliance with the ministerial code of conduct and to curb political advisers and their corrosive influence. We have warned the Government about that almost from day one.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman started by referring to the sixth report. Does he acknowledge that that report actually says that special advisers play a valuable role? Is it not therefore inappropriate to use words such as "corrosive" to describe that role?
  Mr. Lansley: Later in my speech, I shall explain at length to the hon. Gentleman—whom I suspect knows it, but will not admit it—why we are saying not that special advisers or political advisers have no role to play, but that

  81
  the manner in which the Government have deployed them, the number of advisers whom they have employed, and the way in which the advisers have done their job has made that role utterly corrosive rather than valuable, as it was under the previous, Conservative Administration.
  Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend contrast the position in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—which has no advisers to help in addressing detailed and expert issues in, for example, design, architecture and planning—with that which prevailed in the former Department of the Environment? When a Conservative Member was in power at that Department, many of the advisers whom we had did not have party political allegiances. Although one of the advisers had been a Liberal Democrat candidate, he also happened to be the best expert on environmental issues that we could find. Would my hon. Friend also like to contrast advisers and political appointees?
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has demonstrated from his own experience as a former Secretary of State for the Environment the way in which the previous Administration not only employed fewer special advisers, but employed those who could help the Government to serve the public interest, rather than only those who would serve a party and a partisan interest.
  We saw what the Government intended almost from day one. It all began with the spin doctors pushing out the civil service Government information officers. Andy Wood, the former director of information at the Northern Ireland Office, described the
  trashing of reputations of certain members of the then Government Information Service by special advisers.
  The spin doctors then turned to members of the Government. Lord Hattersley described how a former Minister was rubbished to him by Downing street. Then, they got hold of Government statistical presentation, triple counting spending plans on health, and announcing the same education initiative 17 times; £500 million for farmers that turned out to be £1 million; and the 5,000 extra police who turned out to be no extra police at all. And so it went on.
  Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House how many times the Conservative Government changed the unemployment statistics when they were in power?
  Mr. Lansley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's stricture but, even if I did, is he arguing that before the election the Labour party decided that it had seen things that the previous Conservative Administration did that it believed were wrong, and proposed to imitate them? Or did Labour believe that it was coming to office to do things differently? It did not do things differently—it did things worse.
  So it went on. The more the spin machine has grown, the more it has fed on the legitimate role of Ministers and the civil service: promoting its own interests, feeding the egos of those involved by manipulating the careers of others—all the classic techniques of the palace courtiers. Not only does the Prime Minister demand to be treated
  82
  like the Chinese emperor, with everyone kowtowing to him, but he needs his equivalent of the eunuchs to do his bidding.
  Mr. Fraser Kemp: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lansley: On that apposite note, I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Kemp: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the improper use of taxpayers' money for people to operate in a party political role. Will he assure the House that none of the Short money allocated to the Opposition—more than £3 million—is spent in Conservative central office and specifically the war room within Conservative central office? The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was asked three times on the "Today" programme to give that assurance; on each occasion, he failed to do so.
  Mr. Lansley: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman did not disappoint me; he made precisely the point that I expected. He will know that the Leader of the House provided precisely the answer. She said:
  Recipients of Short money have to furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor in a form determined by the Accounting Officer to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in relation to the party's parliamentary business under the House's resolution.—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 272W.]
  In the context of a debate on the Neill committee recommendations, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) did not make it clear that the increase in the Short money was voted by this House and was in response to a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We are here to see why the Government, having pursued that recommendation successfully in the House, are not willing in the same way to impose on themselves recommendations which stem from the Committee.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government provide similar assurances for the money spent from the public purse on all their special political advisers?
  Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. We will get no such assurance or accountability. It will be hidden in the increases in running costs of Government Departments, which have gone up by £2 billion in comparison with what would have been spent by the Conservative Administration at this stage. Special advisers cost £1.8 million in the last year before the election; the figure is now up to £4.3 million—some £2.5 million extra.
  Even the new Labour backers and Labour Back Benchers have now noticed that the emperor has no clothes, and they have rebelled. They know the malign effect of the spin machine. The dam has burst and Labour's own people are speaking out.
  Tony Wright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be unfortunate if the Short money

  83
  issue distracted us from the debate, but we shall get distracted only if the hon. Gentleman does not gives the assurance for which he has been asked. At least we know who the special advisers are, what they are paid and so on. Short money is designed to be used for the parliamentary activities of the Opposition parties. Is it being used only for such activities? Can he give us that categorical assurance?
  Mr. Lansley: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make that point. I have made it clear that the Leader of the House has set out the way in which the Short money is to be accounted for. It will be accounted for in precisely that way. There will be no difficulty about that.
  The condemnation that is now falling on the Government for their spin machine is something for which they have only themselves to blame. We told them it was wrong. The Neill committee took evidence and made recommendations. Even six months ago, changes could have been made in response to those recommendations, and the corrosive influence of Labour's spin machine would have been rolled back.
  Labour's reaction to criticism illustrates the problem—there is no contrition or humility, only an arrogant denial of what everyone knows to be true. We are asked now to believe that every one of the stories from "sources", rubbishing Labour Ministers, is an invention of the press. All critics are dismissed and their motives questioned. They are described as "self-indulgent"—meaning they will not stay on message and have the effrontery to say what they think and what they know to be true.
  The Prime Minister said two years ago, that Labour had to be very careful
  that we are purer than pure.
  The Prime Minister has failed and it is his personal responsibility. It is no good the Prime Minister delegating responsibility to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office; it is the Prime Minister's power that is being used to ill effect and it is his abdication of responsibility which has brought this condemnation on his Government.
  Not least, it was the Prime Minister's responsibility to uphold the highest standards in public life by following the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and he has not done so.
  Mr. John Redwood: The House will notice tonight that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is not in her place to reply to the debate. Does my hon. Friend think that that is because she has consistently been badly briefed against by senior Labour spin doctors; that she does not accept the feeble line put out by Labour that it was all made up by the press; and that she has wisely stayed away because she does not want to lie to the House?
  Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Minister for the Cabinet Office is attending a meeting in Paris to discuss drugs policy. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office is here. The Leader of the House was replying in detail to media questions yesterday. I am surprised that as the Minister
  84
  for the Cabinet Office could not attend this debate, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, and the Leader of the House have not. The Government have searched carefully for Ministers who have neither sinned in this respect nor been sinned against. They had to look very far down what the Leader of the House described in an interesting aside—it gives away what they think about this matter—as the feeding chain.
  On the ministerial code of conduct, the Prime Minister sold the pass in the first instance by failing to adopt in particular the formulation proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
  It will be for the Prime Minister to determine whether or not Ministers have upheld the highest standards in particular circumstances.
  However, the code, published in July 1997 read
  It will be for individual Ministers to judge how best to act in order to uphold the highest standards. They are responsible for justifying their conduct to Parliament and they can only remain in office for so long as they retain the Prime Minister's confidence.
  In the light of the evidence, the Neill committee has now proposed that this be replaced by a text, the final sentence of which reads:
  The Prime Minister remains the ultimate judge of the requirements of the Code and the appropriate consequences of breaches of it.
  There is a critical issue at stake. It has always been true that a Minister who loses the confidence of the Prime Minister, or that of this House, cannot continue in office. We did not need a code to establish that. The purpose of the code is to set ministerial conduct within an ethical framework, with a mechanism for accountability. The present formulation makes compliance with the code a matter essentially for the Minister concerned. The Minister becomes judge and jury in his or her own case.
  The Prime Minister can avoid—and, in practice, has avoided—becoming the arbiter and defender of the code. The authority of the office of the Prime Minister has not been harnessed to compliance with the code. Yet that is precisely what the Prime Minister implied in July 1997, when he wrote a foreword to the code and said that he expected
  all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the code.
  One important case will serve to illustrate the problem. The Deputy Prime Minister has had the benefit of a flat leased to him by the RMT on the basis of a statutory secure controlled tenancy. This tenancy continued after the RMT's sponsorship of the right hon. Gentleman ended. Questions relating to the registration of this as a benefit and a conflict of interest in relation to parliamentary proceedings were examined by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I make no comment about that. However, it is important to be aware that the Committee was concerned only with the right hon. Gentleman's position as a Member of Parliament, not his position as a Minister.
  Separately, my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) wrote to the Prime Minister about the conflict with the ministerial code. The code is specific. Paragraph 113 states that while Ministers can be trade union members,
  care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest.
  It adds that Ministers
  should receive no remuneration from a union.

  85
  After its inquiry, the Standards and Privileges Committee invited the Deputy Prime Minister to enter his tenancy of the union flat in the Register of Members' Interests as a registrable benefit, so the breach of the code could not be clearer. In the view of the Committee, the Deputy Prime Minister receives a benefit from the tenancy and should register it.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman's recollection of the decision of the Committee might be inaccurate. It did not decide that the tenancy was registrable, but that it would be better to register it. That is a different matter.
  Mr. Lansley: And how many angels will fit on the head of a pin?
  So what did the Prime Minister do about the case? To start with, he replied to a written question on 4 April by saying that the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells had been passed to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister for reply. A further letter from my hon. Friend was referred to a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for reply. The absurdity of that should be obvious even to Labour Members—that one of the Deputy Prime Minister's junior colleagues should be asked to pass judgment on his boss.
  After two further letters, eventually my hon. Friend got a prime ministerial reply. The Prime Minister used two arguments. First, he said that the Standards and Privileges Committee report had—in his view—vindicated the Deputy Prime Minister. Secondly, he said that the Deputy Prime Minister continued to have his confidence and that no actual conflict of interest had occurred. It is clear that the Prime Minister is willing to blur the issue of the position of Member of Parliament and Minister, and to use a test of confidence, not compliance with the code. There is no evidence in the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend of an understanding of the requirements of the code, no evidence of an investigation and no explanation of how he has applied the code.
  It should not be acceptable to this House that the Prime Minister will not secure scrutiny of the code or any investigation of substantive complaints, nor provide an impartial account of the findings of such complaints. The power of the Executive in our constitution is so little fettered that the highest ethical standards must be maintained, and be seen to be upheld.
  Tony Wright: I know that the conservatives have decided to elevate amnesia to an ideology, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the first Nolan report, in 1995, that made the recommendation about the role of the Prime Minister in relation to the code. That recommendation was explicitly rejected by the previous Government.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on such matters and he will know that the point at which the code of conduct is customarily reissued is when a new Administration are formed. There was not a new Administration until 1997—two years after the 1995 recommendations. A Labour Prime Minister then had responsibility for reissuing the code. Therefore, it falls to the present Prime Minister to explain himself. I will take no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for
  86
  Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who established the Nolan committee in the first place and has an honourable record in the matter.
  The Prime Minister has ignored both the letter and spirit of the code. It is another case of a Prime Minister who will say whatever he thinks will garner him support, but do whatever he finds expedient in his personal and party interest. The pursuit of party interest rather than the public interest is the hallmark of this Government. It is true also in the way in which Labour has packed Government with its political placemen.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Government pursue party interest, not the public good. Would he care to comment on the case of Michael Simmonds, who was the political adviser to the chairman of the Conservative party in 1996–97 and not only on the Government payroll, but based in Conservative central office?
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman should have given me notice of that question before he asked it. However, I can answer it from the Conservative party's experience. In the run-up to the 1992 election, I was a paid official of the Conservative party and I was appointed as a special adviser. However, the Conservative party paid my salary. It provided me with, as it were, board and lodging. Under present circumstances, people who act exclusively in the party interests of the Labour party are scattered across Whitehall, at the taxpayer's expense.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Neill committee specifically referred to the foreword to the ministerial code of conduct. It said that the effect of the foreword is to underline the status of the code as the Prime Minister's document, written not only as guidance for Ministers but as a pledge to the public. Does my hon. Friend think that the current behaviour of some Labour Members shows that they take that pledge to the public seriously?
  Mr. Lansley: I take my hon. Friend's point. Labour Members do not take that pledge seriously. All the promises that were made at the election were about securing office. They are concerned with power, not with serving the public interest.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that only last year the Prime Minister, abandoning his high-mindedness of 1997, boasted at Question Time of the effectiveness of his press secretary—someone paid from the public purse—in attacking the Conservative party? Was not that an absolute disgrace?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, and his point aptly brings me to the points I wish to make about special advisers. Three years ago, before the election, there were 38 special advisers; now there are 79. Earlier this year, there were 74 at the point at which the Neill Committee recommended a limit on numbers. Since then, the Government have not only ignored that recommendation but continued to add to their number.
  Let me make it clear—the question was raised earlier—that I am not opposed to the appointment of special advisers. There is a defined role in offering political advice to Ministers, and in keeping that separate from the impartial advice of the civil service. But that is not the

  87
  way Labour's special advisers work—they seek to act as gate-keepers to senior Ministers, take executive roles, speak at party meetings, make overseas visits, engage in political briefing of journalists, subvert the work of the Government information service and blur the boundaries between civil service and party. They act not as a complement to the disinterested advice of civil servants, but as a partisan operation, devising policy for the presentational benefit of the Labour party. To those people, the Labour party's interest and the public interest are the same.
  It is no wonder that Labour is all spin and no substance. It is dominated by spin doctors. It thinks only of the short-term presentation, not the long-term public interest. Those Ministers who do not do the same are done down by the mischievous briefings of the spinmeisters and their apprentices.
  Most dangerous of all is the tripling of the number of advisers in 10 Downing street. In the past, party officials going to Downing street knew that they were entering the heart of the Government machine. They were the outsiders. Now it is civil servants who feel that they are the outsiders. No. 10 is a Labour party office. It is the recreation of the Millbank tower operation inside Government. The Labour party cannot or will not stop being an Opposition. It still believes that it can spin its way out of the reality of the public's experience.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not typical of the Government's attitude that in their amendment to our motion they quoted from the Neill report the comment that
  special advisers have a valuable role to play.
  However, the Government have omitted the remarks later in the same paragraph:
  There is the argument, however, that if the numbers of this type of public servant, and their degree of influence, rise to a point where the influence of the "objective" public servants is outweighed, the effectiveness of the principle of objectivity in public life is diminished.
  Is not that precisely what is happening?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. What he says does not surprise me, as it is in the nature of spin to extract from a paragraph the half sentence that suits the Government's purpose, and to ignore all qualifications and additions.
  The Government do not understand that, ultimately, they will be judged by reality. They will be judged by delivery and not by spin. Reality influences perception, not the other way around.
  Special advisers cost £1.8 million in 1997, and they cost £4.3 million now. Running No. 10 Downing street cost £3.4 million before the election, and costs £5.9 million now. The Government are setting up the knowledge network—dubbed the Ministry of Truth in Whitehall—at a cost of £240,000 and rising. The research and information unit has eight staff, and no one knows what they do. The strategic communications unit used to have six staff, but now Mr. Alastair Campbell is its operational head and it has 11.
  88
  We know that, technically, Mr. Campbell is allowed to undertake partisan political work only in his lunch hour and tea break.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: A long lunch.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend anticipates me. Mr. Campbell must be breakfasting, lunching, dining and taking tea for the benefit of his party these days.
  I know that Mr. Campbell cannot answer back in the House of Commons, but that does not matter as everyone knows that he will be answering back in unattributable briefings. However, spin and Mr. Campbell himself have become the story—and there, as Mr. Charles Whelan will tell him, lies the danger.
  Ken Follett attacked the Labour spin machine and the Prime Minister's responsibility in particular. He was right in the most important thing that he said: he noted that the main problem was not who said what, but that the Prime Minister was responsible for what was happening and had not stopped it. The reason for that is that he cannot; he knows no other way.
  The Labour Government have no purpose other than power. They are more concerned with who is up and who is down than with what they are achieving. They applaud spin over substance. They need to cut the numbers of special advisers.
  We have a commitment to differentiate specialist advisers from political advisers, and to ensure that those specialist advisers are appointed according to Nolan rules. The Government will not do that. We will cut the number of political advisers close to the level inherited by this Government at the general election, which means that we will virtually halve the present total. We will restore clear boundaries between the political function in government and the civil service functions that should properly be impartial and disinterested.
  That is the challenge to the Government in this debate. Why have they failed to make any response to the Neill committee on its important recommendations? Will they respond now? Will they understand the importance of the problem, and act on it? The Government have not understood that, and I know that they will not. This is a Government who have lived by spin, and now will die by it.
  7.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move, To leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the statement by Lord Neill that there is now less cause for concern about standards in public life than when the cash for questions affair led to the setting up of the Committee in 1994; restates the Government's commitment to maintaining a non-political permanent civil service; agrees with the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that "special advisers have a valuable role to play"; acknowledges that the Report deals with the serious issues across a wide range of subjects; and notes that the Government plans to respond before the summer recess.'
  Perhaps I should begin with an apology, as I am delighted to hear that I have neither sinned nor been sinned against. I am grateful for that double blessing from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), and I shall try to keep up the record, keep my night job, and shine my halo.

  89
  At the outset I wish to make it clear that the Government value the work of the Neill committee highly. We strongly supported the establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in October 1994, which took place amid deep disquiet at the conduct of some Conservative Members. Labour's 1997 manifesto promised to clear up politics and to rebuild the bond of trust between the British people and the Government.
  We said that we would clean up politics. Our system of government is centralised, ineffective and bureaucratic. There is unquestionably a national crisis of confidence in our political system. An early decision in November 1997 was to extend the remit of the Neill committee's work to review issues relating to the funding of political parties, and to make recommendations as to any changes in the present arrangements.
  The Committee's sixth report, "Reinforcing Standards", is a review of its first report. We therefore welcome Lord Neill's statement that there is now less cause for concern about standards in public life than when the affair about cash for questions led to the Committee being set up in 1994.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Tipping: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remind us all about the allegations of corruption that were made while he was a Cabinet Minister.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He probably needs an intervention, as he is wallowing badly. Will he explain where all the stories in the press come from about his boss, the Minister for the Cabinet Office? She is not here tonight, but the stories say that she is on the way out, that she is useless and not a team player, and that she has fallen out of love with Downing street. Does he take the line that Conservative Members take, which is that the stories came from senior Labour spinners and members of the Government? Or does he take the line being put out by Downing street—that all the journalists who wrote those stories are liars?
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman ought to stick to his spinning on the cricket pitch. As the new leader of a political unit, he should do a bit of research. My boss is not the Minister for the Cabinet Office. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get the small points right, what hope is there for the new campaign that he is to lead forth?
  Mr. Redwood: The Minister for the Cabinet Office is clearly the Minister's boss in this debate, because she should be here to answer it. I hope that the Minister talked to her before producing this drivel. Will he answer the question? Did the stories about the right hon. Lady come—as we all know that they did—from Labour spinners and senior members of the Government, or is the Minister going to say that all journalists are liars?
  Mr. Tipping: I think that the right hon. Gentleman needs to look at what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said. She said that there was no substance in allegations that the Prime Minister or his official spokesman spun against her.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If the stories were made up by journalists, how is it that items rubbishing the right
  90
  hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), and the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, were followed rapidly by the demotion of those Ministers? If the stories were made up by journalists, those journalists are remarkably well informed. The reality is that they did not make the stories up—the stories were fed to them by spin doctors paid for out of the public purse.
  Mr. Tipping: I sometimes wish that journalists were remarkably well informed and researched. If they were, they would write stories about the numbers of doctors and nurses in training and about standards rising in our schools. They would be interested in the comprehensive spending review and the transport plan, both of which are to be announced shortly. None of those stories appear, and that is a measure of how out of touch many journalists are.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: That sounded a bit like Pravda. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked where all the stories about the Minister for the Cabinet Office came from. Are they all a complete fiction? What did the right hon. Lady mean when she told Saga magazine, in response to that very question, that someone was out to get her?
  Mr. Tipping: I am always delighted to give way to an hon. Member who was special adviser to two successive Chancellors of the Exchequer between 1986 and 1989. The hon. Gentleman makes the allegation, but he must tell the House where the stories come from. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made it absolutely clear that she has no idea as to the provenance of those stories. She has said that she disbelieves the claim that the Prime Minister and his official spokesman were spinning against her.
  Mr. Gummer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, employed special advisers during his long career.
  Mr. Gummer: As the special advisers that I employed included members and candidates of other parties, it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to attack me. May I bring him back to a point that he made earlier, when he repeated the Prime Minister's view that the new Labour Government would re-create confidence in these matters with the British public? Given that they have failed even to re-create confidence with Mr. Follett, what hope have they of convincing people who were not on their side in the first place?
  Mr. Tipping: Mr. Follett writes interesting books, which are pure works of fiction. I am very sorry that my friend Ken Follett cannot distinguish fact from political fiction. I think that he should stick to his real job of writing novels.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Lord Neill said that standards in public life were higher now than in 1994. The criticism tonight is that the Government are not responding quickly enough to the committee's report. Our position is unchanged—we will respond to the 41 detailed recommendations by the end of July, which is just 18 parliamentary working days away. Conservative

  91
  Members express surprise and astonishment at what I have just said, but the position is extremely clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, who has already intervened in the debate, way back on 26 May, and said clearly that he would respond before the summer recess. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyne), who will be winding up for the Opposition, is a member of that Committee, and rightly prides himself on being in touch with issues of this sort. He must have seen the Prime Minister's letter.
  Similar commitments have also been given on several occasions in the House, particularly during business questions and through parliamentary answers.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tipping: Let me just make this point, as it might help the hon. Gentleman.
  No time limit is set down by which a response must be made to the committee. I remind the House that the previous Administration took nine months to respond to the second report of the committee, then under the chairmanship of Lord Nolan. It is less than six months since the sixth report was published, and so that there is no confusion, I will reaffirm that we intend to respond before the end of the month.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not true that when Lord Neill went to the Public Administration Committee, he said that he wished that the Government had made a response sooner, and that they had made it by now? Secondly, is not the point that the Government are getting into all kinds of disasters because they should have responded—and positively—at an earlier stage?
  Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's good wishes and good news. I wish that he would give us more support of this kind. However, these are complex matters, and we will be responding to them. There are 41 recommendations covering a wide range of issues, some of which have important constitutional implications.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Tipping: Just a minute. The recommendations that relate to the conduct and privileges of Members of Parliament are particularly complex. The House will want to consider those issues carefully. They have already been subject to some preliminary discussions by the House.
  I am in a position of slight embarrassment, in that two special advisers are among those who wish to intervene. I refer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who was special adviser to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) from 1989 to 1994—she is sitting next to her former boss—and to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was special adviser to Jonathan Aitken and to the right hon. Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) from 1995 to 1996. So I will give way first to special advisers.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way. He may not have
  92
  been sinned against before this evening, as was said earlier, but, given his position, he is certainly being sinned against now. How can the Government justify the enormous increase in taxpayers' money to fund special advisers who are carrying out Labour party policy and working for the Labour party but paid for by the taxpayer? Why do the Government need to spend so much more in taxpayers' money on propaganda, when it should be spent on schools and hospitals?
  Mr. Tipping: Substantial sums of extra money are being invested in education and schools, in health and hospitals. The amount of money spent on the civil service is declining from that spent by an Administration to whom she was a special adviser.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Why, in 1998, did the then Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), complain to the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment when the press officer, Mr. Jonathan Haslam, refused to insert party political material into an official Government news release?
  Mr. Tipping: I am clearly not in a position to answer that question. It may well be relevant to this debate, but I cannot take responsibility for the intimate workings of all 3,600 senior civil servants.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Minister seems to be accusing Conservative Members of having been special advisers. Are we to infer, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman disapproves of special advisers, in which case he disapproves of his Government's policy? What is his problem with this? Does he not understand that the debate is about elected accountability, and that his Government's reliance on spin and the use of special advisers blurs elected accountability and damages democracy? That is the point of the debate.
  Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Lady is a former Minister and has been a distinguished Secretary of State. She will know that special advisers are responsible, through their Ministers, when it comes to criticisms and accountable to the House. Nothing has changed there. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made it quite clear that he supported special advisers, and so do I.
  I wish to make a bit of progress.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tipping: As the hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck, I will give way to him. However, I have given way many times already, and I will make some progress after this intervention.
  Mr. Robathan: The Minister has been characteristically courteous. He has given way a great deal, and for that I thank him. However, he seems to be trying to get off the hook by saying that the Government will respond to the Neill committee's sixth report by the end of the month. Part of the debate refers to the ministerial code, which can be enforced now. Why will the Prime Minister not enforce paragraph 113 of the ministerial code relating to the relationship with trade unions, of which he is very well

  93
  aware, as regards the Deputy Prime Minister and his flat in Clapham? It can be done now—the Prime Minister does not have to wait.
  Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman took me back to where I was before I took a number of interventions. There are 41 recommendations in the report. Some are complex, some affect the House, some relate to proposed legislation on the criminal law on bribery. These are serious matters, which require careful attention.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently produced proposals for discussion. The sixth report, however, is a package of proposals, and the Government will respond to the package. We are giving these matters the serious consideration that they deserve rather than producing a knee-jerk reaction, for which we would no doubt be criticised by Conservative Members, who now characterise mature reflection as delay. The time for a debate on the sixth report will be after the Government's response. The debate this evening is premature. It is characteristic of an Opposition who will try to jump on any passing bus. Opportunism for all and everything now appears to be their cry.
  As they say, a week is a long time in politics. When it comes to major parliamentary and constitutional changes, 10 years may come too soon. It is important to try to get these things right.
  Mr. Kemp: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about a disjointed response to questions from the Opposition? Earlier, I asked whether not one penny of Short money—£3.5 million-worth of taxpayers' money—should be spent on party political purposes, when we know that it is being spent on the Conservative party's war room. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) did not answer that question and refused to give an assurance. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about a quote from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)? He said, "We have spent this money in many ways. One of these is for support for the shadow Cabinet in the war room."
  Mr. Tipping: I noted what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said about the matter. He said that the Conservative party would be duly accounted and audited. The comment from the chairman of the Conservative party is clearly a quotation that any audit would want to take into account.
  Mr. White: Will my hon. Friend give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If the Conservatives have nothing to hide on Short money, why did they try so hard to prevent the Select Committee examining it?
  Mr. Tipping: I am sorry but I missed my hon. Friend's point. Conservative Members were complaining that I am not giving way often enough. I have given way many times to Opposition Members, and only twice to my hon. Friends.
  A number of charges have been made about Ministers and special advisers. I do not intend to reply to them in detail or to get drawn into discussion of individual cases. However, I will say that the ministerial code is working and is effective. We welcome Lord Neill's conclusion that
  94
  there is no need for an independent ethics commission to investigate alleged ministerial abuse. That speaks volumes.
  The party that gave us the A team—Archer, Aitken and Ashcroft—can speak only from weakness. If there is a crisis of confidence, the previous Conservative Government have much to answer for. What is more, I have not mentioned the H Word—Hamilton.
  Much has been made about the growth in the number and influence of special advisers. I suspect that some Conservative Members are coming to believe the magic and mystery that is alleged to surround some of these postholders. It is inconceivable that 78 special advisers can corrupt and politicise the senior civil service of 3,700, or a civil service of 466,500 permanent staff. We remain committed to an independent and impartial civil service.
  It seems that no one has denied—it has been a theme of the debate—the need and role of special advisers. The Opposition Benches are littered with a handful of distinguished former occupants of the post, and we have heard from some of them. Perhaps we should note what the Neill committee says on the matter. It acknowledged the valuable role of special advisers, but no judgment was passed on the numbers considered appropriate.
  Nevertheless, the Opposition complain about the numbers and costs of special advisers. Special advisers existed under Conservative Administrations, and guidelines then were far from clear. It was this Government who were responsible for publishing the model contract for special advisers. The contract is explicit and public about their role. That is a transparency that did not exist under the previous Administration. We have also been open—it has been quoted back to us—about the number of advisers and their costs.
  For healthy debate, politicians need support and assistance. I was delighted at the decision to increase financial aid to the Opposition parties. There was a 270 per cent. increase to £3 million in Short money for the Conservative Opposition alone. That sum has risen to £3.4 million in the current year. The Leader of the Opposition also receives an additional £500,000. Whether value for money is being achieved remains a moot point. The carping that we are hearing tonight needs to be set in the context of the public support that the Opposition parties have received.
  Select Committees deserve support, too. Recent changes in our procedures have provided more time to debate Select Committee reports. There is a continuing debate on the need for the appropriate level of support for Select Committees.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been mentioned. I remind the House that the twelfth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges cleared my right hon. Friend of complaints against him. It concluded that he should register his tenancy only because
  in the current climate it would be better
  if he were to do so.
  Mr. Robathan: I can see the Minister's embarrassment from this side of the Chamber. Will he confirm that the

  95
  Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has no role in commenting on, or enforcing, the ministerial code of conduct? That code is the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I am sorry to embarrass the hon. Gentleman because I think that he is a decent person. The ministerial code has been blatantly flouted and the Prime Minister is taking no action whatsoever.
  Mr. Tipping: I am not embarrassed at all. It is the hon. Gentleman who should be embarrassed. He was one of those who made the complaint against my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Select Committee dismissed it out of hand.
  Despite all the concerns and the accusations that will be made this evening, the House and the public should be encouraged by Lord Neill's statement that there is now less concern about standards in public life than when the committee was established in 1994. The Labour party said that we would clean up politics, and we are. We will take no lessons from the Tories on cleaning up politics.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is it not rather odd to be lectured on integrity in public life by Opposition Members who supported the most sleaze-ridden Parliament since the times of Lloyd George? Surely they are the last people to give us lectures on integrity.
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has made his point in his own way.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tipping: Yes, but for the last time.
  Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman is seeking to reassure the House of his commitment to maintaining high standards in public life, will he speak to the Secretary of State for Health, who has apparently not found time to see Dame Rennie Fritchie after her extremely critical report on the abuse of the appointments system in the health service? There has been the most disgraceful stuffing of NHS boards with Labour councillors, and that has been repeated with primary care trusts. There has been no response to the report and apparently Dame Rennie has not even been seen by the Secretary of State for Health.
  Mr. Tipping: The sixth report of the Neill committee draws attention to public appointments. I have said that we shall respond within 18 working days. A factor that came out of the Fritchie report was that the numbers of women who have been appointed to trust boards, along with people from the black and Asian communities, have increased substantially. We should be proud of that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Tipping: No, I shall make some progress.
  At the end of the day,
  it is easy to overstate the magnitude of the House of Commons' problems. It is equally easy to exaggerate the attractions of the House in its "golden age".
  96
  Those words are from a recent pamphlet of a former special adviser to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer between 1986 and 1990. Despite his words, I suspect that, unfortunately, we shall hear about problems along with exaggerations in bucketfuls throughout the rest of the debate.
  8.19 p.m
  Mr. John MacGregor: The House knows that I am a member of the Neill committee. However, I do not propose to speak mainly in that capacity this evening. I have another interest to declare, because I think that I was one of the earliest special advisers, although that was not our title at that time. Way back in my youth in the early 1960s, I was a special assistant to Sir Alec Douglas-Home, when he was Prime Minister. There were two of us at No. 10. I hasten to add that we were paid by the Conservative party and not out of public funds.
  Of course, I have had special advisers. Two distinguished special advisers who have made an admirable contribution are both in the Chamber. I recognise the value of special advisers, but their value is not the issue this evening. We all realise that special advisers have a role to play. I am not criticising the concept, and I think that the model contract brings the point out well. It states:
  Special advisers are appointed to advise the Minister in the development of Government policy and its effective presentation.
  The point is that both the role and number of special advisers have changed under this Government. That is why there is so much scrutiny of them and of spinning.
  I heard the Leader of the House speaking on "The World This Weekend" yesterday. I understand why the Minister for the Cabinet Office cannot be here this evening, but I believe that the Leader of the House should have taken this debate. Certainly, when I was Leader of the House I would have done so. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is a nice, decent man, but, with respect, he has floundered this evening, and it would have been proper for the debate to be taken by a Cabinet Minister. One wonders why it was not. Either the Government are attempting to spin down the issue—in which they will not succeed—or the Leader of the House is all too aware of how much substance there is to our charges.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I can enlighten my right hon. Friend, I think. The fact is that the Leader of the House was herself the target of a vicious campaign of leaking and briefing. Her own position was in jeopardy, and it was only when three Conservative Back-Bench Members—among whom I am proud to include myself—spoke up for her that the campaign finished.
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend offers a third reason, and he may well be right—I suspect that the answer may be a combination of all three.
  When I listened to the Leader of the House yesterday, it struck me that she was commenting on the kind of issues that inevitably arise in the run-up to a general election. I was Leader of the House from 1990 to 1992 in the run-up to the general election, and I understand her point. However, we were extremely careful to distinguish between the work that civil servants should do and the

  97
  work of those employed on party activities. If the description of what Alastair Campbell does is anything like right, he is coming dangerously close to a position in which he ought to be funded by party funds, not public funds.
  The Leader of the House seemed surprised yesterday that special advisers had become an issue of public debate. She has overlooked two points. First, everyone realises that news management is more important to the Government than policy. How things look matters more than what the Government do. Spin matters more than substance. so it is not surprising that that has become part of the public debate. What is surprising is that it did not happen earlier—I thought that that would happen last year.
  The whole process of spinning has gone on for a long time and has been increasingly commented on, so the danger for the Government is that it has become a real issue. Spin is like a fire that has smouldered under the surface for a long time and which suddenly blazes out. The issue has been commented on so often and so many examples have been given that it has become a liability for the Government—and one that they will not easily shake off. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, those who live by spin will fall by spin. The second reason for the issue's importance is that the numbers of special advisers have greatly increased, particularly at No. 10. I had misgivings about the way in which information officers were treated early in the Government's life. We never contemplated doing anything like that.
  Mr. Ken Follett is not the only commentator; indeed, he has come rather late to the debate. It was fortuitous that his article appeared in The Observer on Sunday and it is revealing that he has come out in public. It fits my bonfire point that Labour Back-Bench Members are beginning to express misgivings that have existed for some time and that are now coming to the surface. Mr. Follett is not alone, and I cannot believe that all the stories about malicious remarks about colleagues are simply invented. We all know what the Lobby is like, and that its stories often have some substance.
  My own admirable daily newspaper, the Eastern Daily Press, contained its Commons diary on Friday, in which the political editor commented on the closure of the Press Gallery over the weekend because of air conditioning problems. He wrote:
  The air conditioning has gone wrong and part of it is leaking fluid into MPs' offices downstairs. This is one of the few leaks in recent times not to have originated in 10 Downing Street.
  Mr. Peter Kellner, in the Evening Standard today, gives several instances of leaking and details Labour Back-Bench concern about it.
  Mr. Winnick: If there were any lobbying against Ministers in the way alleged by the right hon. Gentleman, I should be against it. I always have been against such briefing. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the role played by Bernard Ingham? Time and time again when a Minister was to be sacked, we knew beforehand. John Biffen is the best-known example, but there were many others, including a Foreign Secretary. When one considers what Ingham did, whatever Mr. Campbell may
  98
  or may not have done seems slight by comparison. Did the right hon. Gentleman protest at the time against the actions of Ingham?
  Mr. MacGregor: I have read Bernard Ingham's autobiography, in which he makes it clear that he did not engage in that kind of activity. Indeed, he has been extremely robust in drawing a contrast between his behaviour and that of Mr. Alastair Campbell.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The right hon. Gentleman obviously has enormous confidence in Mr. Ingham's denial. Bearing in mind that Mr. Campbell has also denied such action, and from a forensic point of view, does the right hon. Gentleman have even a shred of evidence for what he is suggesting? Does he have any concrete proof to support his comments?
  Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure to which comments the hon. Gentleman is referring. I believe that leaking is taking place. Ex-Ministers are discussing it publicly. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said on the "Today" programme this morning that spin doctors and political advisers now have disproportionate influence and that too much goes through the sieve of the policy unit at No. 10. The burden of the hon. Gentleman's charge is precisely the sort of thing that I have talked about. Leaks are taking place.
  No. 10 and Mr. Alastair Campbell deny that any of the leaks come from them. The Leader of the House said yesterday that leaks could have come from lower down the food chain. I think that she meant by that that they might have come from special advisers and their ilk. It is an important point. The role of special advisers has clearly changed since our Government were in power. None of our special advisers would have made comments about colleagues or spread mischief. Something is wrong in the Government's body politic.
  Tony Wright: To avoid confusion, would the right hon. Gentleman say exactly where he comes from on this matter? The Opposition motion states that the Opposition
  believes that the number, and activities, of Special Advisers is prejudicing the impartiality of the Civil Service and accountability of government,
  but the Neill committee inquiry and report explicitly repudiated that view. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a party speech, or does he claim to speak on behalf of the Neill Committee, which said something completely opposite to what he is saying?
  Mr. MacGregor: I made it clear when I began, and shall do so again later when I refer to the Neill recommendations, that I am speaking mainly on my own observations of the situation as someone who has been involved in these matters for a long time. The Government are damaging themselves greatly by allowing the type of activity to which I have referred to continue. Often, I suspect, it is being conducted by special advisers.
  There have also been many mutterings from civil servants about the way in which special advisers have increased their role in private offices and similar areas, and I think that that is highly dangerous. We limited the role of special advisers. As anyone who had special advisers will know, ministerial meetings would be

  99
  attended by at least five or six civil servants and only one special adviser. It seems that the balance may have switched the other way.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the previous Government, it was not merely that special advisers were not encouraged to brief against Ministers in other Departments, but that such activity was specifically prohibited? I recall that on day one as a special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), she made it clear to me—quite rightly—that no such activity would be tolerated.
  Mr. MacGregor: I shall come to that point later, but I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) would have said exactly the same. I can say with confidence that we did not do what this Government have done.
  Why are the Government doing it? It is part of the climate of spin. Either advisers are being tipped off by Ministers to do a hatchet job for them, or they have an inflated idea of their own importance, fed by flattering encounters with journalists.
  Mr. Kemp: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the need for democratic accountability among special advisers. Is he aware, however, that an inquiry was held two years ago into special advisers? The Select Committee on Public Administration invited Mr. Alastair Campbell to sit before it for five hours of tough questioning. I recall that the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) led the questioning, asking everything possible. There was not a scintilla of truth to the accusations, and no evidence that Mr. Campbell or any other special adviser had briefed against anyone. That was democratic accountability in action. Few other Parliaments in the world operate in that way. That happened less than two years ago, and no evidence was produced that people had behaved improperly in any way.
  Mr. MacGregor: The stories have not gone away—nor has the flavour or the smell. Now, it is very often Members on the Government Benches and Government supporters who complain about the Government's approach and activity.
  The Neill committee's recommendations on special advisers will help by providing a framework to put the role of special advisers on a proper basis. However, they do not get to the heart of the problem to which I referred. Although desirable in themselves, the recommendations do not address the concerns currently being expressed about the Government's methods and priorities. That is a matter for Ministers—especially the Prime Minister—to deal with, but, clearly, that is not happening.
  I am disappointed that the Government have not already acted; I look forward to what will be said in a few days time, but I cannot understand why they have not acted on limiting the number of special advisers. The Neill committee recommended that such provisions might be incorporated in a civil service Act. I fully accept that such a measure would take time; that is why the
  100
  committee also recommended that, in the interim, the House could introduce a statutory instrument. If the House could vote on the matter, that would be the way to proceed. That is exactly how the issue of special advisers has been dealt with in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where there are statutory limits on their numbers.
  The Government could at least deal with the Neill recommendations. Perhaps that would help to overcome the feeling that they do not want to face up to the problem, because they cannot control the numbers.
  The sixth report contains other important recommendations—for example, on the procedure in seriously contested cases in the House. That is probably the matter that the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind when he said that it raised big issues. The proposal has been well thought through—with much support in the House and elsewhere—as a way of achieving natural justice for Members who find themselves in such situations.
  There are important recommendations on the composition of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and on a change in the advocacy rules to enable Members who have a direct interest in a matter, but who know what they are talking about, to initiate debates and propose amendments. I cannot understand why we do not implement that quickly; it would greatly help the proceedings of the House. The recommendations on a civil service Act and on the sponsorship of Government activities are also important.
  It is a pity that the response to the report will not come out until the end of July. I hope that the Government will not dribble it out on the last day before the summer recess so that we do not have a chance to consider it. I hope that it will be published well before Parliament rises and that there will be quick action on the recommendations. The matter should not be allowed to drag on; the recommendations are widely supported.
  Tonight's debate is, above all, about the manner in which the Government conduct their business—the way in which they have allowed this tremendous feeling of conflict to take root, with a concentration on spin rather than on policies. I warn the Government that the issue will not go away; they have not tackled it quickly enough.
  8.33 pm
  Tony Wright: I declare an interest in that the Select Committee on Public Administration, which I have the honour to Chair, is currently considering the issues of special advisers and the ministerial code. We hope to say something useful to the House on those matters in due course.
  I take the House back a brief six years to 25 October 1994. I remember that day vividly. I sat on the Opposition Benches, watching John Major—a Prime Minister who was beleaguered—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know how to refer to another hon. Member.
  Tony Wright: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was beleaguered and under siege. Each day brought a new revelation. It was the high point of the age of sleaze.

  101
  We could hardly believe many of the revelations; it was so extraordinary that people could behave in such a way—bringing themselves, the House and the whole of public life into disrepute. Worst of all was the fact that we got used to such things; they became so routine and casual that they ceased to astonish us. They ceased to outrage us. We expected them to happen and they did.
  That is why the right hon. Gentleman had to announce, in extremis—under pressure—the establishment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That evening, I stood in the taxi queue downstairs, listening to the conversation among a group of Conservative Members of Parliament. One of them said, nodding his head darkly, "This is a bad day. It will cause us nothing but trouble because this will not go away." That was the point.
  The right hon. Gentleman's action was brave and necessary, because public life was being rocked. The most important fact was that the committee was set up not as a short, sharp fix in order to get over one day's, or one week's, bad news, but on a standing basis so that it would continue to report to this House—as it were, constantly delivering bad news and challenging the House to do something about it.
  Mrs. Laing: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, is he paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for his decency and honesty in taking that action?
  Tony Wright: I frequently pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. In a moment or two, I may well do so again, because he was the first Prime Minister to publish the ministerial code. I think he was embarrassed—who would not be?—by what was going on around him. I think he was embarrassed by his party, and in considerable distress that the behaviour of members of his party had brought both the party and public life into disrepute.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I do not contest the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but does he acknowledge that, at that time, as at present, there were more than 650 Members of the House? If he were to add up the scandals, he would find that only a small number of people were involved. It is not fair of the hon. Gentleman to try to smear an entire political party for the sins of a few—especially as many current Members from that party were not Members of the House at the time.
  Tony Wright: That is a most interesting and revealing intervention. It is best answered by a short extract from the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in 1995. In the section on Members of Parliament, paragraph 13 states:
  Whatever the reason, there has been a significant growth in the number of Members of Parliament who have entered into consultancies or other forms of agreement which might reasonably be thought to influence their Parliamentary conduct. Analysis of the 1995 Register of Members' Interests suggests that 26 Members have consultancy agreements with public relations or lobbying firms and a further 142 have consultancies with other types of company or with trade associations. These 168 Members hold between them 356 consultancies. If Ministers and the Speaker are excluded there are 566 MPs. Thus almost 30% of eligible Members of Parliament hold consultancy agreements of these types.
  102
  Paragraph 15 states:
  While the lack of detail in the Register makes precise analysis difficult, it appears in their different ways that some 389 of the 566 eligible MPs—almost 70%—have financial relationships with outside bodies which directly relate to their membership of the House.
  We are not talking about a small handful.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman quotes accurately from the first report of the Nolan committee. However, he will admit that, after we take away Ministers, there were about 230 Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. I was one and I did not have any consultancies, and many of my hon. Friends did not, either. Out of the 389 Members of Parliament mentioned, quite a few—at least 150 and possibly more—were from parties other than the Conservative party. Indeed, most of them were from the Labour party, and I make that point in a spirit of bipartisanship.
  Tony Wright: That is a nice try, but it is simply not true. The figures are entirely clear. I do not make my point in a churlish or ungenerous spirit, because it is a matter of historical record that the previous Parliament, I am afraid, was contaminated by the behaviour of large numbers of Conservative Members of Parliament. We ought to put that point on the record, but we should put it behind us. Thank goodness, the Neill committee was set up to do something about the problem and, thank goodness, it managed to do things that the House had failed to do over many years.
  Paragraph 49 of the first report of the Nolan committee sums up the position. It states: In recent years Members have acquired paid consultancies on a large scale. Over the same period public scepticism about MPs' financial motives has increased sharply. It must be more likely than not that these two developments are related, but in any case their combination can only tend to undermine the dignity of Parliament as a whole.
  Mr. Bercow: I am a little worried by the hon. Gentleman's propensity to smear or, at least, to seek to smear. Will he, therefore, tell the House how many of the people to whom he has just referred were found to be guilty of wrongdoing?
  Tony Wright: I am surprised when hon. Members ask such questions, because they are almost an invitation to go through the whole wretched roll call again. I am more than happy to do that. I have the roll call with me, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that going through it would embarrass him far more than it would detain me. In a spirit of generosity towards him, I do not think that it would be helpful to do that. However, I am sure that I have friends here who would be more than happy to toss names into the pot and to remind the House of these great episodes of the past.
  I am perplexed by the Opposition's approach to this issue. Why on earth do they want to return to the issue of the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Every time that they return to the issue, it revives all these blessed memories. It tells the British public again why the committee was set up in the first place and what its history is.
  Even more, I cannot understand why the Conservative party wanted to ennoble the wretched Ashcroft. All that it did was revive the same memories. Why, having spent

  103
  years trying to bury that history, do Conservative Members want to resurrect it by such an outrageous act? It brings back all the memories of why on key issues, such as party funding, the previous Government resolutely refused—despite being asked many times—to refer the issue of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They would not do it, because they were dreadfully embarrassed about the secrecy surrounding the Conservative party's accounts and the fact that it was funded by a small number of individuals, most of whom were based abroad. Therefore, we were not able to have the type of public scrutiny that we should have had. It took this Government to refer the issue of party funding to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and to proceed with detailed legislation following from that inquiry.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman will not give us a number, will he not tell us whether he is trying to suggest that the many people who held consultancies were all guilty of wrongdoing? If he is not trying to suggest that, what was the point of his saying what he said? He seems to think that the previous Government included people who were guilty of wrongdoing and that they were manifestly punished at the polls by being ejected from office in such large numbers. However, if he thinks that that will stop the present Opposition from holding this Government to account, he has got another think coming. We will expose their wrongdoing as rigorously as though there had never been the problems for which most of us were not responsible in the past.
  Tony Wright: The words and the figures that I gave were not mine; they were Lord Nolan's. I merely reminded the House of the context in which his inquiry was established, the evidence that he pointed to and the links that he made.
  However, as the hon. Gentleman invites me to reflect more on this serious issue, I shall consider what has happened to trust in public life in the same period. We can have a party political battle and it is the Opposition's job to make useful political mischief out of the headlines of the day. We all know that is what it is about. However, the underlying issue is how people perceive the political system and the trust that they have in it. That is far more fundamental than the party political battle.
  The biggest indictment that I would level against the Conservative party is not so much the individual incidents that took place, but the corrosion over that period of the fundamental trust that people have in public life, politicians and the political process. If we lose that trust and it is eroded, it is very hard to claw it back. Lest the hon. Gentleman is about to intervene to ask me whether I am making that up, let me assure him that I am not. According to the annual British attitudes social survey, by the mid-1990s fewer than one in four people trusted British Governments to put the interests of the nation above those of party. That is a fall of 16 percentage points on the previous decade. That was the effect on trust in politicians and public life in that period whereas the proportion had been more or less constant for the decade before the mid-1980s.
  I referred to a period of steep decline in public trust, but that began to recover just before the 1997 election. In fact, its recovery was associated with the establishment
  104
  of the Nolan committee. When people saw that something was being done about the problem, there was the beginning of a recovery in the figures for the trust that people have. I do not make the point in a partisan sense, but that trust grew sharply during the 1997 election and grew even more sharply afterwards. In 1996, although 25 per cent. of people strongly agreed with the statement that parties were interested only in their votes and not in their opinions, that figure had fallen to 20 per cent. by the time of the 1997 election. After polling day, it fell to 14 per cent. The cheering news from those figures is that, despite the catastrophic erosion of people's trust in politics and public life in the 1990s, it has been possible to reverse the trend. I take that to be a rather good development.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a versatile specimen, so I should like to tax him on the breach of trust involved in briefings against Ministers. If Alastair Campbell was not, as is widely supposed, responsible, who was responsible for describing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in every national newspaper as "psychologically flawed"?
  Tony Wright: As I said, it is the Opposition's job to make political mischief and they are fully entitled to do that. I wish them well, but it is a wearisome business. As I have been invited to say something about the issue, however, may I point out that I am astonished by the outbreak of what one might call political virginity among the political classes? It is though it is a shock and a revelation to learn that politicians like to be liked, like to be liked more than their colleagues and try to ensure that the world knows that they are liked more than their colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] As I said, this bogus political virginity is extraordinary. I take the fact that politicians want to be liked as an axiom of political life at all times in all places. The idea that that fact is somehow something about which the world should know is extraordinary. It is an interesting political game to play; it is probably more interesting than chasing after real issues.
  I should like to make one further, perhaps more substantial, point on the matter, because it concerns me.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has said that before.
  Tony Wright: I am on to a more serious, not trivial, point.
  The political class—not just here but across the world—is far more adept than ever before at controlling political communication. If politicians can control the news, they will do so. That is, in a sense, their job in life. It is the job of the media to stop them controlling the news. Two dangerous developments are occurring. First, there is the idea that we must all speak with one voice. We have a political class that is more control-minded than ever before—I talk not in a party sense but across the board, as all politicians want to control the news, and technology helps them. Secondly, the ability to translate that idea into day-to-day politics is far more developed than ever before. The effect is to close down political debate; to create a suffocatingly narrow area within which genuine political debate can take place.
  How do the media respond? Do they respond by ensuring that political debate comes out and that the issues are pursued? Of course not; they respond by seeking a

  105
  cigarette paper's difference between two people from the same party. The story becomes one of division and split. No one cares about the issue involved, yet the media claim that they are acting in the interests of something called—perhaps—public service broadcasting. The only thing that they are interested in is trying to find three words that someone might utter that can be set against three words that someone else might have uttered in order to write a story about split and division.
  If one puts together the two abdications—if I may call them that—of the political class from open political debate, which is a feature of modern life, and of the media from the real pursuit of issues, beating, playing and overcoming the spin, I am afraid that one has the atrophy of political life. That is the real condition of politics in Britain today. That is where political debate is going. We should be concerned not with silly arguments about who briefed what against whom, but with what is happening to the quality and character of our political life owing to such developments. If the Opposition were at all serious, that is the issue on which they would be challenging the Government. I am sorry; that was a diversion and a distraction.
  There is a history to all this. As I sought to remind the House earlier, the previous Government refused even to send the issue of party funding to the Nolan committee. It was the previous Government who, when presented with the first report of the Nolan committee on the ministerial code and the role of the Prime Minister, rejected it. It was a good try of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), but the question was not one of waiting for another Government to come along. The fact is that the Government of the day produced a detailed response to Nolan and specifically would not accept it. One cannot blame the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. Who would accept that they had to take responsibility for such stuff going on around them?
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend made mention of consultancies and the rest, but does he accept that the Nolan committee, as it became known, was appointed by the Prime Minister only as a result of cash for questions? Although I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said about the media and triviality, tribute should be paid, as I said in debate in 1994, to The Sunday Times. Although the paper suffered tremendous criticism for the way in which it tried to trap Members on the tabling of questions for money, it is extremely unlikely that the Nolan committee would ever have been appointed but for its series of articles. Therefore, I have always paid tribute to The Sunday Times in that respect.
  Tony Wright: I very much agree. I regret that serious investigative journalism is much diminished these days in the pursuit of the other material that I have described. That is part of the abbreviation, the attenuation of public life that we are seeing.
  I do not want to detain the House very much longer, but I want to say a word about the issues raised in the Opposition motion arising from the Neill report. The special advisers issue is an interesting one. It is of course fertile territory for such exchanges, but it must be recorded that Neill has conducted the only extensive inquiry into the matter. Having considered the matter, the Neill committee thought that special advisers were in
  106
  essence a good thing. I shall not quote the sentence that has already been quoted, but point out that, in summing up the evidence, the report said:
  Almost all witnesses made clear their view that special advisers were valuable components of the machinery of Government.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is not in dispute. Nobody is suggesting the abolition of the adviser system. We are asking the Government to implement Lord Neill's recommendations. So far, they have been determined to refuse to do so.
  Tony Wright: We are all going to agree about that. The hon. Gentleman invites me to point out that his evidence to the Neill committee on the matter of special advisers sharply contrasts with the evidence given by the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). On the key issue of who should pay for certain categories of advisers, Lord Neill preferred the right hon. Gentleman's evidence.
  Mr. Tyrie: I am sorry to delay the House, but as a matter of record, I made four recommendations to the Neill committee. Three became three of the Neill report's main recommendations and the fourth, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is now beginning to be widely discussed by people questioning Alistair Campbell's behaviour. If he is exclusively to do party political work, perhaps his salary should be paid from Labour party funds.
  Tony Wright: I simply make the point that the Conservative party could not even manage to put one voice before Neill on these issues, but that is unworthy and I withdraw it.
  Perhaps the more revealing comment during the inquiry came from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, who, when asked whether the number of special advisers was damaging the civil service, as the motion claims, and whether there was politicisation of it, said:
  My short answer to your question on that is that I do not think the Senior Civil Service of 3,700 people is in danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers. That is not what is happening and I do not see it as creeping politicisation.
  Even in their motion, which in some sense claims to support Neill, the Opposition directly contradict the Neill inquiry.
  The Neill inquiry was important. The committee has made some important recommendations on a new code for advisers—to which I hope the Government will respond positively—and on numbers. Parliament should have an opportunity to decide, broadly speaking, on the numbers.
  I want to say a word about the code, a subject that has surfaced during the debate and in which I have taken an interest over the years. There are a number of questions to be asked about the ministerial code, and I am not entirely sure that the Neill committee got it quite right. There are questions about who the ministerial code belongs to. I am not persuaded that the Prime Minister should have it in his back pocket as an informal rule book. I would be happier if the code belonged to the House of Commons and fitted into a larger framework of parliamentary accountability, but I may not be able to persuade the Government of that.
  I am not sure that Neill got it right on the question who investigates alleged breaches of the code. That is an important issue. The Public Administration Committee

  107
  has spoken to Lord Neill about it, and I was not entirely persuaded by what he told us. His broad answer was that the Prime Minister can get anyone in the land to help him to make inquiries.
  That is not a satisfactory position. The Cabinet Secretary said to Neill, "It is not my job to find out what went wrong. I am not that kind of investigating officer." Permanent secretaries have said to Neill, "It is not our job to find out whether our Ministers have been in breach of the terms of the code." Whose job is it to go and find out, so that we can have some real assurance that there has been a proper investigation, and so that Parliament will know what happens? The Government need to think carefully about that.
  A further question is where the buck stops. I referred earlier to the recommendation in the first Nolan committee report, which basically stated that under the terms of the code, given its ownership and its status, the buck must clearly stop with the Prime Minister. That was not accepted by the previous Government. It has been stated again in rather different language in the sixth report from the committee, and the Government must now accept it. If the code is to be a prime ministerial document, there is no avoiding the fact that there must be prime ministerial responsibility for deciding whether breaches of the code have occurred.
  If we could detach ourselves from the happy exchanges during the debate, there are some serious issues to consider. There is need for eternal vigilance on these matters. The fundamental issues are important. It is essential to ensure that the boundary lines are properly transparent and are properly policed between the different elements of the system. I do not for a second underestimate the importance of that.
  There are challenges for all of us. If I may say so, the challenge for the Opposition in tabling such a motion is to show a certain amount of what might be called constructive humility. They have a past to account for. Collectively, they did great damage to British public life over an important period, and I hope that now, in a constructive way, they might seek to help us to rebuild it.
  On our side, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, we came in with a challenge and a promise. We said that we would develop a new kind of politics and that there was to be a new kind of trust. A huge responsibility comes with saying that, and we have to make sure daily that we discharge it. Anything that departs from that is a derogation from the promise that we made to the electorate three years ago.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright). He may recall that it was my question at Prime Minister's questions in the previous Parliament that prompted the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to set up the Nolan inquiry. My question was
  …can the Prime Minister reassure the House that his Administration is now a sleaze-free zone?—[Official Report, 18 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 142.]
  108
  It was not first and foremost about Parliament, nor about civil servants or special advisers. It was about members of the right hon. Gentleman's Government. Conservative Members are foolish to have raised the question in the way that they have done this evening.
  For all that, I believe that the Nolan committee and now the Neill committee have done the House and the country a great service. They have shone the searchlight of inquiry into the far reaches of Whitehall and Westminster to good effect.
  Spinning may be considered a political disease by the professionals, but in the eyes of the public, the besetting sin of politicians is hypocrisy. We have all found that in our dealings with our constituents. Conservative spokesmen this evening are probably too young to recall that great spinner—the godfather of spinning—Bernard Ingham, but I well recall the occasions when he spun so effectively, as has been mentioned, about Ministers who had fallen out of favour with his mistress, the right hon. Member for Finchley, as she then was. When he referred to the then Leader of the House as being a semi-detached member of the Cabinet, sure enough, very soon afterwards he was completely detached.
  In that connection, I was amused to see that Baroness Thatcher was warning us today about the danger of spin doctors and soundbites. It sounds very much like Queen Boadicea giving a lecture on road safety.
  Special advisers, politicisation in the civil service and negative briefing are not the monopoly of the new Government. Indeed, I read in The Daily Telegraph this morning:
  Mr. Follett is plain wrong, though, about his other main contention, that this government is much more prone to internecine briefing than are other parties or were other times. It is simply not true. The Tories are at it like cats in a bag, constantly.
  That is from The Daily Telegraph, which many of us regard as the house magazine of the Conservative party.
  In that great work on the civil service, "Yes, Minister", Jim Hacker once memorably observed that the British Government had the engine of a lawnmower and the brakes of a Rolls-Royce. The Government have responded to the sixth report of the Neill committee with brakes rather than an accelerator. We urgently need to know the Government's intentions, especially as we anticipate that legislation will be necessary and, as the spinners constantly remind us, we may not have a full Session after this year's Queen's Speech.
  Much emphasis has been placed on the number and cost of special advisers. Surely the most important question is not their number or their cost, but their actions. The debate is especially relevant in that context. As Lord Neill's committee made clear, there is a strong case for limiting the numbers and the cost. However, as the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was a member of the committee emphasised, their function in the body politic is more important and raises wider issues.
  In the past, political advisers existed largely to stop Ministers going native and to prevent them, once they were ensconced as head of a Department, from being drained of every drop of radicalism from the right or the left. However, that role has been subtly reversed. Today, a special adviser exists not to prevent a Minister from becoming too dogged by the Department's agenda, but to ensure that he remains on message about the party agenda

  109
  and to make that other Members of Parliament follow the same agenda. Outwith the usual competitive system for appointments, special advisers find themselves acting as intermediaries between members of the party and members of the Government. There has been a sea change in their role since it was first invented.
  Before the last general election, there was an agreement between the two Opposition parties that we urgently needed a civil service Act to underpin the political neutrality of the civil service. I am delighted that chapter 5—a well argued chapter—of the Neill report reverts to that, and that recommendation 17 makes it explicit. I shall not refer to the chapter in detail, but it contains an explicit commitment by the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to a civil service Act. I hope that, later this evening, we shall hear when such legislation will be introduced.
  While in opposition, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) stated in a debate on 2 November 1995:
  we must be very vigilant about using civil servants to perform party political tasks, such as writing conference speeches, briefing Government Back Benchers on party points and so on.—[Official Report, 2 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 482.]
  I am not sure whether his successors or his Department have followed his advice. He continued:
  Almost one third of the current flock of advisers have been taken on directly from Conservative central office. Are they helping Ministers in pursuit of better government, which would certainly justify the public expenditure involved, or are they merely assisting politicians in pursuit of their party careers, in which case the payment of their salaries should revert to Conservative central office?—[Official Report, 2 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 483.]
  The Labour party was worried about the politicisation of the civil service under the Conservative party. So were we. We remain worried; we have good cause. Now that the Labour party is in power, the story has changed. In May 1997, the new Government reworked the model contract for special advisers, but Parliament was not informed. A major change was made, but nothing was said about it.
  In July 1996, the model letter of appointment for special advisers obliged them not to
  engage in activities likely to give rise to criticism that you are being employed at the public expense for purely party purposes.
  That might appear a flimsy protection of the public interest.
  However, in May 1997, it was clearly felt to be too rigorous for the new Government and it was watered down and effectively taken out. A new clause was put in, giving special advisers a specific role in the briefing of Members of Parliament. The justification for that role appears in paragraph (iii) of schedule 1 (part I) of the contract which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), an avid watcher of special advisers, refers to as the control freak clause. It states:
  It would be damaging to the Government's objectives if the Government Party took a different approach to that of the Government itself, and the Government will therefore need to liaise with the party to make sure that the party publicity is factually accurate and consistent with Government policy. To secure this consistency the Government will also want to make sure that Party MPs and officials are suitably briefed on issues of Government policy.
  That watered down the previous advice and made it clear that special advisers now have a direct role in ensuring that party members in this House and, no doubt, the other place, toe the party line.
  110
  The degree of briefing that these people undertake, examples of which have been quoted this evening, has, of course, been considerable. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath has done some useful analysis of briefings by special advisers. He has obtained, for example, a briefing from the Department for Education and Employment which included details of the Government's Green Paper on teachers and suggested rebuttals of the Opposition's attacks on that policy. That is not just promoting the Government, but suggesting how to respond to the Opposition: if that is not political, nothing is.
  My hon. Friend put questions to Ministers on those written briefings, but he was simply fobbed off with an answer which stated:
  similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments.
  That is a subjective reply, if ever there was one. My hon. Friend was also told:
  Records are not held of when such briefings were given.—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 333, c. 251W.]
  Such records should be held and should be publicly available.
  Despite the fact that the DFEE briefing given to my hon. Friend was clearly numbered and dated, and referred to similar documents and where to get hold of further copies, we need a real freedom of information Act and we need it fast. Other Departments seem to suggest that they do not have such information to hand. Perception is sometimes as important, if not more important, than reality. Inevitably, we are given the impression that, by stealth, the taxpayer is funding more and more party political work. The number of special advisers is significant but, as I said earlier, their role, surely, is important too.
  Civil servants' role and neutrality is under attack from other directions. Included in that attack is the growing number of taskforces, to which the Neill committee referred and which are completely unelected bodies, set up to discuss particular issues. They may include civil servants from many Departments, but they also include so-called outside experts. Common to all is a lack of guidelines, context and accountability. Again, the Neill committee's recommendations deserve a clear and positive response from the Government.
  Similarly, there has been an explosion in the number of secondments from private sector companies to Departments. Surely, that should be monitored and governed by clearer guidelines. I feel uneasy when I see how many companies have been negotiating large contracts with Departments and, at the same time, placing staff with those Departments—a potential conflict of interest, if ever there was one.
  Mr. White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a perennial criticism of the civil service is that it has not been aware of what happens in industry, and secondments are a way of dealing with that fundamental criticism, which has endured for a long time?
  Mr. Tyler: That question remains open. Is there a hotline or an inner track from those companies to Minister's decision-making roles? Giving advice is one thing; being in on the decision-making process is another. At the very least, guidelines should be publicly available, be seen by this House and be considered by the Public Administration Committee to ensure that the position is clear and does not involve a conflict ohf interest.

  111
  In an article in The Observer on 25 June, under the heading "'Staff for Favours' row hits Treasury", Anthony Barnett wrote:
  Financial consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers, Ernst & Young and Pannell Kerr Forster have all donated staff to Brown since the election. All have won lucrative consultancy contracts from the Treasury, at least one without a competitive tender. These firms have also had success in forcing Brown to backtrack on plans to stop their multinational clients avoiding tax by channelling profits through offshore companies.
  That is the answer to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). If it was absolutely clear that there was not just a Chinese wall, but an iron curtain between the responsibilities of those advisers or consultants and the decision-making process, we would all be more confident that the proper procedures were being followed. Whereas the civil service is subject to proper controls, that type of taskforce and those types of adviser are subjected to no such guidelines. We need them urgently.
  I come to the issue of propaganda, which again has featured in the debate. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the extent to which civil servants are under pressure to politicise their work. It is an old story; it did not start on 1 May 1997. There was evidence enough under the previous Government, but sadly there is plenty of new evidence that there is a new problem.
  The Government information and communication service, headed by the chief press secretary Mr. Alastair Campbell, spent £126 million in 1998–99 alone publicising the Government. It issues press releases and maintains Government departmental websites. Since 1997, it has spent £634,000 on press releases and £4.8 million a year on websites. Again, the rules that are supposed to prevent such activities from being "polemical" have clearly failed. They are simply impossible to police.
  The increase in press releases since the Labour Government came to power is huge. There are 40 per cent. more than in 1996, and 80 per cent. more than in the previous mid-term year: 1995. The working guide for government information officers says that all Government publicity should be
  relevant…objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical
  and should not
  be or be liable to misrepresentation as being, party political.
  Mr. Kemp: The hon. Gentleman has made the point about press releases and what they should and should not do. Can he give one example where a press release has breached those guidelines?
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I did not know him better, I would think that that was a planted question. I am just coming to that. He must have seen my text—another leak.
  Press releases issued by the Government do not always abide by that code. For example, a press release about the new deal, which was numbered DFEE 550/98 and issued on 26 November 1998, attacked political opponents. It was headlined "Smith Slams Cynical Fabrication of New Deal Figures." That was specifically about the Opposition. It was not about Government policy. Some press releases
  112
  deal with re-announcements, rather than news. Repetition is a propagandist tool, not a neutral representation of Government policy.
  Perhaps the prime example of party having undue influence is the No. 10 website. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a frequent visitor, but I can tell you that it has a number of "manifesto commitments" under the heading, "Facts." My colleagues have researched some of those "facts" and found them to be misleading.
  The first fact is about education spending and is belied by the figures that we can obtain from the House of Commons Library. The pledge on the website is as follows:
  Over the course of a five-year parliament we will raise the proportion of national income spent on education.
  Underneath, it says:
  The proportion spent on education will rise by 0.1 per cent. in 2000/01 and 0.2 per cent. in 2001/02.
  As we all know, that is a selective statistic. Between the financial years 1992–93 and 1996–97, 4.98 per cent. of gross domestic product was spent on education. The forecast is that, between 1997–98 and 2001–02, 4.67 per cent of GDP will be. It is a drop—lies, damned lies and statistics.
  No one who visits the Prime Minister's website can be under any illusion about its primary purpose. It exists to build the image of the Prime Minister, but what do the rules state? They state that it is okay to build the image of a Minister so long as that is a by-product of the Government's publicity operation.
  The civil service code states that Ministers have a duty to use public resources for party political purposes. [Interruption.] I am sorry; that is an extra spin on the meaning. It states:
  duty not to use public resources for party political purposes.
  In addition, there is no accountability over the use of sponsorship and advertising on Government websites. I could quote several such examples, but I want to be brief. The Neill report hardly examines websites, and reaches no great conclusion. However, it acknowledges that such sponsorship needs to be properly monitored.
  The new GICS handbook states:
  Sponsorship should not be sought or accepted from firms which are involved in significant commercial negotiation with the host Department (whether or not linked to the event), or which may be affected by the exercise of that Department's regulatory or licensing work.
  There is no effective monitoring or policing of that particular requirement.
  I turn to partisan research. In the past, civil servants would vet parliamentary questions and refuse to handle any that seemed to be simply about Opposition policies, and rightly so. The Labour party has its own resources and researchers to carry out such research. However, in October 1999, Richard Foster, chief executive of the Employment Service, costed the Tory policy of making the jobless sign on once a day for his Labour ministerial masters. That seems to be in gross conflict with all the indications that we have been given, not only by the Cabinet Secretary, but throughout the history of the civil service. Today, it seems that civil servants are expected not only to evaluate Government policies, but to help the Government to attack Opposition policies and discredit them.

  113
  Such politicisation is compounded by the increasing number of gagging clauses that Departments place on the research that they commission. During this Session, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has asked Ministers a series questions about research. He found that 12 out of 15 Ministers included the power to veto publication in their contracts with academics and that 13 out of 16 required academics to ask the civil service for permission to discuss the research with the media, often in perpetuity and not merely at the time of publication—a gagging clause if ever there was one. The implication is that, although the taxpayer foots the bill, if the research outcome is disagreeable to the party in power, it may be indefinitely suppressed.
  The same is true of the opinion polls carried out by the Government. Two thirds of the poll results paid for from the public purse, for which the House gives appropriate funding, never see the light of day. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath has questioned the Government on that issue over many months and has exposed the extent to which the results are simply kept secret. The Cabinet Office has produced guidelines requiring Departments to make the results publicly available, but so far very few have done so. However, we live in hope, and it will be interesting to see the results of the polling that has taken place since the general election. That shows how important it is to have a really comprehensive freedom of information Act.
  At all levels, there is a worrying elevation of the party good over the public good and a problem with accountability, neutrality and transparency. The Library research paper makes it clear that
  there are three features of the British senior civil service which set it apart from American and European models. These are
  Accountability through Ministers to Parliament
  Selection and promotion on merit, and
  Political neutrality.
  Traditionally, the purpose of the senior civil service has been to serve the Government of the day, and thus the electorate. It is alarming to find that the Government are not only indirectly withdrawing power from the electorate, through the use of extra-civil service bodies and political appointees, but politicising their work and using research commissioned by them by the back door. It is no excuse to say that the process started under a previous Government. This Government came to office with a mandate to clean up the Augean stables, and we want them to do just that.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I see from the course of the debate that my campaign for briefer speeches is unlikely to succeed. I shall pursue it unilaterally.
  More than any other Member of the House, I was elected on an issue of public trust. Public trust matters to me, as it does to all other Members, and the reputation of the House has improved marginally—maybe even substantially—over that which it had in the previous Parliament. That is due partly to Members themselves, who are being more careful to avoid conflicts of interest, and partly to the machinery set in place. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, in his place. He has done great
  114
  work, as has the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards herself. I very much regret the whispering campaign against her.
  Members of the House signed on to a set of rules, and they are beginning to realise how stringent those rules are, but it is much better to be criticised for being too zealous in applying them than for being lax. Does that mean that the spectre of corruption has gone away and that public trust is completely restored? Of course not. The beast is out there, lurking somewhere beyond the nets and harpoons of the parliamentary policing system. It lies down there at the other end of this great building on issues of party funding and honours. Peerages have been and are being bought, as are knighthoods. We must get to grips with that and hope that we do so when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill comes back to us.
  I do not expect widespread support when I say that the power of the parties has increased and is increasing, but ought to be diminished. That is what I believe, however, and special advisers are a relevant issue: by all means, let the parties have their placemen and placewomen in ministerial offices if they must and if that improves their liaison, but I cannot see any reason why they should be paid for from the public purse. They should be paid for by the parties.
  Shortly after being elected, I attended one of those meetings of the supposedly great and good—academics and politicians from both sides of the Atlantic—on precisely the issue of how to increase public trust. I put forward the heretical notion that behaving better was one way for us to achieve that. There was a sharp intake of breath around the table and an American Congressman in trouble with his state police and press over an issue of corruption said, "Sir, they will nickel and dime you to death." Well, so far they have not.
  So far, we are doing better, but we have to improve what we are doing to curb the power of the parties. I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the parties are not as popular in the nation at large as they think they are or think they should be. We need the parties to make government work, but let them not overreach themselves. I believe that they are overreaching themselves on the issue of special advisers.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Hilary Benn: I have listened to the speeches of Conservative Members with considerable interest and one theme that has emerged is that before 1 May 1997, special advisers were paragons of rectitude and that they have since become subverters of democracy. On that subject, I can do no better than quote Sir Bernard Ingham, who, talking of special advisers, said that
  some of them can cause immense chaos.
  As he was talking about his time in government, I hope that that does not reflect badly on some of the former special advisers on the Opposition Benches. All I shall say on spinning—I hate the term—is that in my experience, those who spin are likely to become dizzy. It is not a practice that I would recommend.
  I have some experience in this matter as a former special adviser, as do other Members, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a serious debate to be had about the role of special advisers in government. As other Members have said, the Government have been open about the work of advisers and I am genuinely sorry

  115
  that instead of engaging in the serious debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred, the Opposition have chosen to create an atmosphere of dark intrigue, which I must tell the House is far from what I remember in my job at the Department for Education and Employment, which I did for two years.
  The two key questions concern legitimacy and influence. I think that the House agrees that special advisers are legitimate, not least because of how long they have been in existence but also because it is recognised that Ministers need a particular type of support. That has been acknowledged by the Neill committee, the 1968 Fulton committee, the 1976 Expenditure Committee and the 1985–86 Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. That Select Committee report said:
  we have formed the impression from talking to witnesses that in general special advisers and career civil servants have been able to work creatively and harmoniously together.
  That is certainly how I recall my time at the Department for Education and Employment.
  Reference has been made to whether special advisers should be paid for out of public funds. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) touched on that a moment ago. I see no problem with it, given that they help the Government to do their job more effectively. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Neill committee endorsed that view and said that it could see no reason why special advisers should not continue to be paid out of public funds.
  The point has been made forcefully that Short money is used to employ the equivalent of special advisers on the Opposition Benches. That is unquestionably the case, so I see nothing wrong with that system.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says about the means by which special advisers are paid, does he believe that it is acceptable for a serving special adviser to speak at a party political gathering? It was not the normal practice under the previous Government; regrettably, it has become so under this one.
  Mr. Benn: As I recollect my contract of employment, it said specifically that I was not to take part in party political conferences. That should be pursued in all cases.
  The central question is whether special advisers undermine the impartiality of the civil service. All the evidence is that that is not the case, because their existence helps to protect that impartiality by acknowledging that Ministers require particular forms of support and advice, which they need from a distinct source. The code of practice that has been published specifically recognises that.
  There is a considerable volume of work in a modern Government Department. Government is more complex than ever, and because of their background and expertise, special advisers, who have—or at least should have—a unique knowledge of the governing party's background, history and policies, are able to give advice which it would be wrong to expect a civil servant to give. They have a different perspective, which is why they have a different status. I genuinely believe that that is no different now from how it was under the previous Government.
  116
  I see with interest that Professor Anthony King, remarking on the status of special advisers, said that they were
  neither hog, dog, nor mutton.
  I had not come across that expression before. If I was ever the dog of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—I thought that somebody else had that job—I tried to fetch and carry diligently; if I growled, I did so with discretion; and if I barked, I never ever did so in public.
  More seriously, advisers also help officials to do their job. I was interested to see that, in its evidence to the Neill committee, the First Division Association specifically acknowledged that that was so.
  Let me deal with the central question of the charges of wrongdoing, which appear to be the substance of this debate. Having said early on in his speech that he would back up his charges, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) miserably failed to do so. Where is the evidence of corrosive influence? As others have said, if such evidence exists, why was it not submitted to the Neill committee? More important, why did the Neill committee comment so favourably on the role that special advisers perform? Why did Sir Richard Wilson, in answer to specific questions when giving evidence to the Neill committee, say, first, that he could see no evidence of abuse and, secondly, that he was not concerned about politicisation?
  On the subject of briefing the press, Sir Richard Wilson told the committee:
  not just under this Government, but under previous governments, in my experience, political advisers have spoken to and briefed the media.
  It is important that that is put on the record.
  My final point concerns the question of influence. Ultimately, it is for Ministers to decide whose advice they wish to take in reaching decisions, with the understanding that they will then take the consequences. In other words, the buck stops with Ministers, not with their special advisers. Special advisers should never become the story in themselves, because that makes it much more difficult for them to do the job that they are supposed to do. I have no problems whatever with the Neill committee recommendations in relation to special advisers.
  Much of the debate this evening has been hot air about advisers. It has been a substitute for a debate about the nature and practice of our political process. I very much endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. In the courts of days gone by, if one wanted to criticise the king but did not have the guts to do so, one said that he was badly advised. If the Opposition are unhappy about the Government's policies, they should say so directly. If the Opposition did their job more effectively, they would not be so obsessed with special advisers.
  No Government can survive on spin, and that includes this Government. This Government will succeed because of their achievements. They have a lot to be proud of. They have achieved a great deal and have much yet to do. I believe that that is what the public also think, and I suspect that that is what rankles with the Opposition so much.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) was doing very well until the end. His father is a consummate spinner, and the hon. Gentleman could learn a few tricks from him. At the end he lost the plot completely, but I shall not pick up all the things that he got wrong. I would rather make a few points about the debate, and more particularly about the way Britain is being governed.
  It has been an interesting debate about advisers. I think that everyone is agreed that advisers have a legitimate role. However, as many hon. Members know, I for one—I have now been joined by a large number of others—have become increasingly concerned about the role of advisers in this Government. I encouraged Lord Neill to look into their role, and I made some proposals for reform in my evidence to him. In particular, I suggested that a cap should be placed on the number of advisers—which has risen from 70 to about 80 since I wrote that evidence—that advisers should be subject to a statutory code of conduct, and that the code should be enforced by permanent secretaries, because at the moment there is no means of enforcing the code. I am pleased that Lord Neill has accepted all those recommendations.
  Many of us are concerned about advisers not just because their numbers are up or because they have started travelling abroad on a huge scale—they have been on something like 500 trips since 1997—or because they gossip to the media. Those are just symptoms of something much more fundamental. Advisers are assuming new roles in Government that they have not had in the past. The plain fact is that No. 10 Downing street—the very heart of Government—is being taken over by advisers.
  A few months ago, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for a chart showing the structure of No. 10 Downing street and how it operates. Excluding the support staff, there are 67 staff in mainline jobs, of whom 27 are special advisers. What is more, the whole building now answers to a special adviser, Jonathan Powell. That was explicitly denied when I asked the question of the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, but it has now been confirmed in a letter to me from his successor.
  The truth is that No. 10 has ceased to be merely the centre of a civil service machine at the heart of Government, but is becoming a Labour party headquarters. It is an open secret that the Prime Minister takes far more notice of his advisers than he does of his ministerial colleagues. Cabinet Government is dead; even Cabinet Committees do not count for much. Ministers may have the red boxes but their contents are increasingly being provided by the Prime Minister's advisers.
  Special advisers are part of the reason why Britain is steadily moving towards presidential government. The Prime Minister does his best to ignore Parliament. He hardly ever comes here, as I am sure you notice, Madam Speaker. He rarely votes, and he hardly ever speaks in the House. It goes further than that. He lets it be known that he ignores his colleagues, and prefers the advice of his advisers. His political companions are not his Ministers: they are his advisers, who are chosen by him, trusted by him and accountable to no one but him.
  The fact is that, as a result of placing No. 10 in the control of advisers, doubling the number of advisers in Whitehall and releasing them from many of the
  118
  constraints on what they can do, there has been a fundamental change in the way in which Britain is governed. That has had profound effects. It has undermined, or is in the process of undermining, the traditional checks on power that come from a politically neutral civil service. It is undermining the customary ways of making decisions through Cabinet Sub-Committees; and, because Parliament now has no contact with many of the real decision makers in this Government—the policy advisers at No. 10 Downing street—it is beginning to undermine Parliament itself.
  Mr. Beard: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what evidence he has to back up the saga that he is spinning, and why it should be treated as anything other than media gossip and tittle-tattle?
  Mr. Tyrie: The evidence is overwhelming.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate, he would have heard it.
  Mr. Tyrie: Indeed.
  The hon. Gentleman should, for instance, have a look at a piece by Peter Kellner in the New Statesman, which makes it clear that a large number of his hon. Friends agree with what I have just said—although they probably will not stand up and say so tonight. Let me quote directly from what Mr. Kellner has written—unless, of course, he is making it up and writing fiction just as everyone else is said to be doing at the moment. He wrote:
  Tony has contempt for Parliament, and it shows. He doesn't even turn up to vote.
  Tony's handling of Wales and London was terrible. He came to office with people believing he'd do politics differently, better. Now he looks as if he's just as bad as everyone else.
  All those kids in their twenties making policy in No. 10. What do they know about anything?
  Those are just a few quotations given to Peter Kellner by some of the Prime Minister's colleagues, presumably over the past few days.
  I do not believe that the British people want this. In fact, I do not think that many Labour Back Benchers want it. I do not even think that Ministers really want government of this kind, any more than anyone else does. It should therefore come as no surprise that many people have begun to raise their voices. At first they just criticised the advisers, but now they are beginning to criticise the Prime Minister himself.
  What those people dislike most is the impotence that comes from playing out a parliamentary ritual in an increasingly presidential Government. Of course that is what one would expect the Opposition to say, but those who are speaking loudest are from the ranks of the Labour party. They are the old Labour supporters, and the new Labour luvvies. Such people are sick of watching or, worse, suffering political assassination by briefing from No. 10 Downing street—the back-stabbing whispers. This is a political culture that has more in common with Medici Florence than with 21st-century Britain.
  There is a long list of victims: the Chancellor, the Minister for the Cabinet Office—although she seems to have recanted recently—the right hon. Members for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the Chief Whip, to name but a few.

  119
  As for the list of those complaining, Lord Hattersley says that he was briefed by a No. 10 press officer and encouraged to rubbish a Minister in an article that he was writing.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has, in many ways, been even more blunt than Ken Follett. He says:
  Too many people believe that spin doctors and policy advisers are running the government's policies…rather than the members of the cabinet and other ministers who were elected to do the job.
  He also says:
  There is too much reliance on the presidential system.
  That is my view, and I suspect that, on a free, secret vote, it would prove to be the view of most Members of the House
  Ken Follett really went for the advisers. He called them
  the rent boys of politics.
  That is a bit over the top, but it does rather stick in the gullet that we are paying the rent.
  Ken Follett's most stinging remarks, however, came when he explained why the Prime Minister was not doing anything about the situation. He said:
  Tony's sure touch deserts him when he faces a decision which cannot be based on expediency…he seems not to possess the inner core of strong convictions.
  Ken Follett then lists a series of moral rocks on which the Government have foundered: the Bernie Ecclestone affair, arms to Indonesia, and much more.
  According to Alastair Campbell, all those people are presumably
  peddling the propaganda of the right
  or are
  better known for their fiction than their judgment.
  at least that is what he has been telling the media today.
  Is that not, however, the heart of the matter? The first instinct of the Government, particularly of the Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister's press spokesman, is to disparage and rubbish anyone who suggests that the Government's manipulation of the media has anything to do with the decline in the Government's popularity.
  Mr. Kemp: The hon. Gentleman asked who pays the rent for special advisers at No. 10 Downing street. Who pays the rent for the special advisers, particularly the press secretary, to the Leader of the Opposition—the Tory party or the taxpayer?
  Hon. Members: Killer question.
  Mr. Tyrie: Yes, that really was a killer question. As the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber for the whole debate, he will know very well that the Short money is fully audited. As he is quite experienced, he should also know that Short money pays primarily for the office of the Leader of the Opposition.
  The hon. Gentleman also knows very well that Short money is a quid pro quo for many services provided to the Prime Minister by the civil service. To give just one simple example, the Leader of the Opposition has a team of people to help him to reply to his correspondence. Who does that for the Prime Minister? It is done by a large
  120
  team in Whitehall, which is quite independent of the new team of special advisers. There is little comparability between those employed on Short money and special advisers. Any such comparison is a smokescreen put up by the Labour party to try to avoid dealing with the truth, which is that the Government have hired a huge cadre of people who are becoming a campaign team for the re-election of the Labour party.
  I believe that a good press team—I acknowledge that Alastair Campbell ran a good press team in opposition—is no substitute for good government. The Prime Minister's style of government is destroying ministerial accountability and corroding parliamentary accountability. Above all, it has started to erode respect for our democratic institutions.
  The Prime Minister can do something about that. The first thing that he should do is to curb the power and activities of Alastair Campbell. If the Prime Minister wants a political hatchet man, he cannot expect the taxpayer to provide the funds. If Alastair Campbell is doing exclusively party political work, he had better resign and be paid for by funds from the Labour party.
  Secondly, the Prime Minister had better clean up his act at No. 10 Downing street. He had better put the building back in the charge of civil servants. He had better start using Cabinet Sub-Committees for some genuine decisions, rather than working out how to implement decisions. He should also show some respect for Parliament.
  Thirdly, the Government should implement in full Lord Neill's recommendations on advisers. Lord Neill has made it plain that he cannot understand the Government's delay in responding to his report; neither can many Opposition Members. Now, let us have a response.
  9.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): It would have been easy to respond to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) if he had bothered to give any facts in his statement, but it was almost pure rhetoric. We cannot, however, be surprised that we get almost pure rhetoric from him. He writes books and gives evidence in which he says that Select Committees should have more power in the House and that that is the way forward in ensuring greater Government accountability, whereas he has attended the Public Administration Committee—his own Select Committee—for only seven of its previous 36 sittings.
  Mr. Tyrie: As it happens, a large number of Public Administration Committee sittings clashed each week with sittings of the Standing Committee considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which I attended regularly. The Labour party has for months been peddling the nonsense that I have not attended Select Committee meetings, and I am sick of hearing about it at every television studio that I go to. It is a load of rubbish.
  Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman does not contest the fact that he has managed to attend only one in five of those Select Committee sittings. It is not surprising.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stringer: No; I shall not give way again. I am not surprised by the hon. Member for Chichester. In his book,

  121
  he mentioned the Prime Minister's attendance in this House at votes. He forgot to mention the fact that the Prime Minister has answered more questions and made more statements than any other Prime Minister.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stringer: No, I will not. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office gave way many times in his opening speech. We have 10 minutes left of an important debate and I shall not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) was characteristically precise in destroying the argument of Opposition Members. He pointed out, as others have done, that no evidence was put forward of the corrosive effect on the civil service that the Conservatives claimed existed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made an interesting speech; his diversion was more interesting than many of the Opposition speeches. He reminded us of why the Nolan committee and the Neill committee existed. They existed because the Conservative party did not control sleaze; this House and the Conservative party were riven by sleaze in the mid-1990s.
  All of us in the House owe a debt to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for ridding it of the previous honourable, or dishonourable, Member for Tatton, Neil Hamilton. He made a characteristically independent speech. I could not agree with every word and every point, but there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has helped to improve standards in this House through his work on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I pay tribute to him for that.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a large number of points and there is not time to answer all of them. I will give the commitment again that it is the intention of the Government to produce a civil service Act. He would be surprised if I said when that will be, as that is a matter for the Queen's Speech.
  I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall in his reluctance to support the idea of secondments from and into the civil service. The Government support the impartiality and objectivity of the civil service, but there is no doubt that it has developed insularity over the years which is not good for the governance of this country. Seconding people with experience of industry and the outside world into the civil service is an extraordinarily good thing, as is taking civil servants out and giving them experience of industry.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stringer: No, I will not give way.
  I was absolutely staggered by the intervention from the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) who complained about appointments to health bodies. Does she not recall Baroness Denton saying that she had never knowingly appointed a Labour person to a health body? That was the record of the previous Conservative Administration.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stringer: No, I will not. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made a number of
  122
  interesting points. He said that the number of special advisers had changed and that the role had changed. Like a lot of his right hon. and hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman failed to produce any direct evidence that the role had changed. He made one mistake when he said that it was not the role of special advisers to brief the press. I have to tell him that his successor had a special adviser who regularly briefed the press, so there has been no change between the previous Administration and this in the role of special advisers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made the point that he was surprised that Opposition Members kept coming back to the Nolan and Neill reports. They kept returning to their party's appalling record of sleaze in the mid-1990s. Why did they do that? There is a simple reason that I am happy to explain to my hon. Friend. Opposition Members do not want to talk about this Government's record on jobs. Opposition Members are the spinners, because they do not want the public to know that a million jobs have been created in the past three years, at the rate of one job every two minutes. Nor do Opposition Members want to talk about the extra money going in to hospitals or the extra £40,000, on average, for every school. They do not want to talk about the working families tax credit, because they would abolish it.
  Opposition Members have a straightforward right-wing agenda. They want to create fear by talking about immigration and asylum seekers. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) himself has not been afraid to advise on using the race card. [Interruption.] It is Opposition Members who are embarrassed by the facts—
  Mr. Tyrie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I fear that it is a point of frustration, but I shall listen to the point of order.
  Mr. Tyrie: As I understand it, the debate is about special advisers. We have just had five minutes of propaganda written by Alastair Campbell about every other area of Government policy. May we have answers to some of the points raised in the debate about special advisers?
  Madam Speaker: As I thought, that is a matter for argument and not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Stringer: Opposition Members do not want to talk about the Government's record. They want to keep the agenda away from the facts. What embarrasses them more than anything else is the detailed record of what they did in government. I can give the House a list of the names of Tories who were the reason for the Nolan and Neill committees. We all remember David Mellor, who left the House; Tim Smith, who was forced to stand down as the candidate for Beaconsfield; Neil Hamilton, who was defeated by the hon. Member for Tatton; Graham Riddick, who was defeated in Colne Valley and who accepted cash for questions; Jonathan Aitken; Michael Brown; and Angela Rumbold. They were the reasons why—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 295.

  Division No. 247]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Amess, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hammond, Philip

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hancock, Mike

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Baldry, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Keetch, Paul

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Key, Robert

  Burnett, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clappison, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Madel, Sir David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Faber, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Oaten, Mark

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paice, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gidley, Sandra

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gray, James

  Rendel, David

  Green, Damian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Laurence

  124

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walter, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  and

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Coleman, Iain

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Austin, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Cox, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Battle, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cummings, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blizzard, Bob

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

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Borrow, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Doran, Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Dowd, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Edwards, Huw

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Etherington, Bill

  Caplin, Ivor

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Foulkes, George

  Clelland, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clwyd, Ann

  Galloway, George

  Coaker, Vernon

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  125

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Pendry, Tom

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Illsley, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rapson, Syd

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Khabra, Piara S

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kidney, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rogers, Allan

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Levitt, Tom

  Roy, Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Salter, Martin

  Lock, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sawford, Phil

  McCabe, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sheerman, Barry

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  126

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Watts, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wills, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 163.

  Division No. 248]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Colman, Tony

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cox, Tom

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cummings, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Browne, Desmond

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Burden, Richard

  Darvill, Keith

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davidson, Ian

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

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

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dawson, Hilton

  Caplin, Ivor

  Denham, John

  127

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lammy, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Etherington, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lock, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foulkes, George

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Pendry, Tom

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Illsley, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rapson, Syd

  128

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Timms, Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wareing, Robert N

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Watts, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wills, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Winterton Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Spellar, John

  Wood, Mike

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woolas, Phil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bercow, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brady, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brazier, Julian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Breed, Colin

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gibb, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burnett, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Burstow, Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gray, James

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Green, Damian

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Hammond, Philip

  Chope, Christopher

  Hancock, Mike

  Clappison, James

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Collins, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Cran, James

  Heald, Oliver

  129

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Prior, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Randall, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Laurence

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Keetch, Paul

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ruffley, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Livsey, Richard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spring, Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stunell, Andrew

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maples, John

  Townend, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tredinnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Trend, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oaten, Mark

  Webb, Steve

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Wells, Bowen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  130

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willis, Phil

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  and

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the statement by Lord Neill that there is now less cause for concern about standards in public life than when the cash for questions affair led to the setting up of the Committee in 1994; restates the Government's commitment to maintaining a non-political permanent civil service; agrees with the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that "special advisers have a valuable role to play"; acknowledges that the Report deals with the serious issues across a wide range of subjects; and notes that the Government plans to respond before the summer recess

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

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
    Question agreed to.
    Ordered,

    STAKEHOLDER PENSION SCHEME REGULATIONS 2000
    That the Stakeholder Pension Scheme Regulations 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Touhig.]

  Airport Regulation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  10.26 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I have great pleasure in introducing an Adjournment debate on the subject of airport regulation. I sought the debate because I am one of those Members with a constituency near to Heathrow. Those of us in that position have many constituents who work at the airport, who use it for business and, most importantly, are affected by environmental costs and aircraft noise.
  Several neighbouring Members have introduced Adjournment debates about Heathrow and particularly about aircraft noise, but I approach the subject in a slightly different manner. I am not so much concerned by what I regard as the symptoms of the problem, but with the underlying causes, such as the way in which airports are regulated. That is the spirit in which I gave evidence to the terminal 5 inquiry a couple of years ago.
  I shall summarise my conclusions and then develop my arguments in a little more detail. The first of the two central points that I want to make is that the system of regulating airports, and Heathrow in particular, is drastically in need of overhaul. The Government have overhauled the system of regulation for other infrastructure industries—notably the railways—but airport regulation is calling out for reform in much the same way. It was introduced in the mid-1980s, at a time when the previous Government wanted to privatise the industry as a monopoly. They did that in a way that made it attractive to potential buyers of shares in the privatised industry without affecting the interests of the recently privatised British Airways. The wider public and social interest was not a dominant concern, but it have should been. That oversight now needs to be corrected in a reform of the regulatory system.
  My second concern flows from the first. The cost of landing at Heathrow airport is very cheap. I would argue that it is ludicrously cheap, because it fails to take into account the economic costs of congestion, environmental costs and, probably, it does not even cover the basic running costs of the operation. That is damaging from a variety of standpoints. It leads to the airport being overused; it leads to the relative neglect of provincial airports, such as Stansted, where there is probably a much greater willingness to see expansion; and, most important, it leads to a substantial shortfall in revenue that the Government could derive from airports for public expenditure, but that they currently do not.
  I shall develop those points in a little more detail. The first element in the system of regulating the airports that needs overhaul is what is called the single till system—the principle whereby two thirds of the profits of BAA derive from parking, property and shop rentals and the other third derives from landing charges. Those revenue streams are pooled. Under the regulatory system, the landing charges are directly regulated under a retail prices index minus X formula, which is referred from time to time to what is now the Competition Commission, whereas the other two thirds of the business are not regulated, although BAA has a substantial monopoly in them.
  132
  That results in a massively grossly distorted system of airport charging. It means that Heathrow has become one of the cheapest airports in the world in which to land, despite the enormous congestion and pent-up demand associated with it. BAA quite openly acknowledges that. It recently commented:
  charges to airlines are among the lowest in the world, and have fallen by at least 15 per cent. in real terms over the past ten years."
  The regulators acknowledge that the landing charges are very damaging, although they cannot do anything about them. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as it then was, said when asked to review charges:
  Any environmental problems, far from being reflected in higher airport charges, are exacerbated by further stimulus to demand as a result of low charges.
  It was highly critical of the system that it was required to operate.
  Moreover, BAA operates one of the biggest retail monopolies in the world through its control of the shopping system at the airport. That aspect is not regulated. Arguably, it results in considerable pressure to over-expand that part of its business at the expense of normal airport passengers. The pressures for T5 primarily come from that source.
  So that is the problem—what could and should the Minister do about it? I understand that the Government are reviewing the system of regulation from which the following elements need to emerge. There should be a proper system of independent regulation that takes into account the wider public interest and not simply the interests of aircraft users. There needs to be a proper system of economic charging, which would almost certainly be substantially greater than the present one.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has conducted its own studies into the matter, and I shall quote just one of them:
  given the extent to which demand for slots exceeds supply at Heathrow and (to a lesser degree) at Gatwick, it is logical to expect that a several fold increase in airport charges would be necessary to reach market clearing level.
  A system of charges based on economic principles could and should be introduced. Under the present structure, such a system would result in BAA making enormous profits. There is no reason why that should be allowed. The Government could deal with that by taxing away the windfall profits, as they did in 1997.
  The objection is sometimes made that such an attempt to change the charging structure would fall foul of international rules. The 1948 Chicago convention imposes constraints on Government charging. However, to the extent that I understand matters—the Minister can correct this—it should be possible to do a great deal. After all, Heathrow's charges are about half those of major European airports such as Paris and Amsterdam, as well as of those of Manchester and some of the provincial airports. Given that Heathrow's charges are substantially lower than comparable airports, there is considerable scope for increasing them.
  Mr. David Taylor: As East Midlands airport is in my constituency, I have a keen interest in the debate. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the estimate that it would be necessary for airport charges to treble to ensure that the market-clearing mechanism removed the excess demand for slots at Heathrow and

  133
  Gatwick, and that charges at the moment bring in £450 million a year, or thereabouts, and the excess charge would bring in about £900 million a year. Is not that an issue?
  Dr. Cable: Yes, that is an issue. The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic and conclusions are entirely right. Charging is a substantial revenue source, which currently accrues primarily to the airlines—many of them foreign-owned—that benefit from the cheap charges. That revenue should ultimately go to the British public. There are mechanisms by which that could happen.
  My second basic source of criticism is related, and concerns the slots. The right to land at Heathrow is effectively given away: under the grandfather principle, slots are allocated on the basis of historic use of routes, which is convenient for airlines that have traditionally had them, and less convenient for new airlines such as Virgin and British Midland, which are trying to get into the business. That is increasingly accepted as a damaging and inefficient way to run a system. An extremely valuable commodity is handed out free, competition is suffocated, and new airlines are prevented from entering the business.
  It has become clear that there are alternative ways of allocating slots, notably by auctioning. American Airlines now auctions slots for domestic flights and earns substantial revenue by doing so. The Government have demonstrated through the third generation mobile phone licences that it is possible for auctions to be extremely effective, well conducted and lucrative. There is no reason why the same principle should not be adopted in an airport context.
  I recognise that there are practical problems, particularly the problem of bilateral treaties and the fact that a plane that takes off must land somewhere. However, consultant studies have been done for the Civil Aviation Authority which show that, within limits, auctioning could be applied at Heathrow. At the very least, it could be employed for take-off and landing at British airports or within Europe, or to allow for competition between British airlines on transatlantic routes, for example. If the Government wanted to be bold and show that they believed in open skies, they could simply employ an open approach unilaterally. Clearly, there is scope for introducing auctions. That would raise the cost of landing to a more appropriate level and would be an alternative or additional way of dealing with the problem, beyond the reform of the single till system.
  The third element of regulation that needs reform is the lack of independent regulation and the constraints imposed on the two regulators, the CAA and the Competition Commission. It is worth quoting from the commission, which described the difficulties under which it labours. It stated that the CAA said that it
  has no duty in respect of the "national interest" and no duty to consider those living near airports.
  On the contrary,
  the CAA's obligations are to satisfy anticipated demands by users of airports.
  That is part of the evidence to the terminal 5 inquiry. Under the present system, then, the regulators are unable to take into account the public interest or the national interest, widely defined. That needs attention.
  The last aspect of regulation that requires attention is the overall context of taxation of airlines. The airlines enjoy enormous taxation privileges. They do not pay fuel
  134
  duty in the way that motorists do. There are international treaty reasons why that is difficult to enforce, and even if we tried to enforce it, there is the practical problem of planes landing with full tanks in order to avoid taxation. Any change would have to take place on an international level or, at the very least, on a European level.
  Estimates suggest that as a result of the airlines' ability to escape from fuel duty and also from value added tax, revenue of the order of £5 billion a year probably goes begging. I appreciate that there are obvious practical difficulties in recouping that, but it underlines the extent to which the airports operate with the benefit of considerable regulatory privileges. Whether that is dealt with through the tax route, the charges route or the slot route—there are various options for pursuing the same objective—it is clear that something should be done.
  One of the consequences would be that the demand for the use of Heathrow would significantly contract. The models used at present to predict the demand for Heathrow and, to some extent, Gatwick assume a virtual doubling of demand within the next generation. That is clearly conditional on the price. I believe that the model exercise has been done by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It suggests that if charges were doubled, which is roughly what the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) suggested, the demand would be reduced by 15 per cent. below what it otherwise would be. If the full slug of taxes were imposed, and the cost was increased by 50 per cent.—
  Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he agree, at least on the principle of the polluter pays, that there is an argument for taxing aviation fuel? The amount of pollution generated per passenger mile exceeds that of road vehicles. Is not the system inequitable?
  Dr. Cable: It is inequitable, environmentally nonsensical and extreme. We are not considering a minor disparity; motor fuel is taxed at more than 300 per cent., but tax on aviation fuel is zero. That enormous distortion in the market clearly needs correction.
  I shall make a couple of points in conclusion. Charges need to increase to deal with the severe distortions that the current system of regulation creates. There are several methods of doing that and I have suggested some of them. Introducing such measures would be environmentally friendly and economically sensible; it would lead to better use of the airports, for example, by discouraging small airlines from using the airport. That would mean better capacity utilisation. The measures would encourage a better balance between Heathrow, Gatwick and the regional and smaller airports.
  The introduction of such a programme would be contentious and the Government would face severe criticism from some of the affected interests. Recently, Mr. Ayling responded to the suggestion of removing slots from his airline by describing it as
  wrong, irrational, unfair, potentially corrupt and against the public interest.
  I note that Mr. Richard Branson describes the current system in almost exactly the same language. The established interest and the potential new order fiercely contest rights.

  135
  It would be argued that any system of economic charging would drive business away from Heathrow. The rate of growth could not—and perhaps should not—be sustained. I live in west London, and it could be argued that development around the airport is excessive, not insufficient. One of the main reasons for the enormous problems that local hospitals suffer in recruiting nurses is the competing salaries in the airport-based industries. Unlimited growth around the airport is therefore not an unmixed blessing. Perhaps some restraint on growth through better regulation would be economically beneficial.
  Critics would argue that measures such as those that I advocated would lead to increased fares. They might do that, although fares are largely set in an international market. Any measure that reduced some of the silly fares, which mean that it costs far less to travel to Madrid and Rome than to get to Edinburgh by train, would be welcome. Some of the irrational pricing in the airline market would almost certainly be eliminated by some of the measures that I described.
  I am grateful for the opportunity of introducing the Adjournment debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  10.43
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining a debate on an important subject, which is acquiring increasing public prominence. I also express my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of the key issues that he wished to raise. I shall attempt to address many of them in my response.
  It is especially timely that the hon. Gentleman should raise the subject of airport regulation now. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been leading a review of airport competition, aimed at ensuring that the regulatory and other arrangements in the sector best further the long-term interests of the travelling public. The Government will make a statement on the outcome in due course.
  Let me set out the wider context. In our 1998 White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", the Government undertook to produce a new airports White Paper, taking a 30 year forward look at the way in which the sector might and should develop, and fully considering the economic, environmental and social implications. Subsequently, the scope was widened to address the whole of air transport policy and thus cover both airports and civil aviation.
  Work is in progress to lay the foundations for that White Paper and we shall consult widely while doing so. At this stage, the Government are ruling nothing in and nothing out, but we have made it clear that that is not an exercise in predict and provide: the scenarios that we are considering include those in which capacity might be lower than the forecast level of demand. In such cases, the management and control of existing infrastructure would assume even greater prominence. Whatever emerges from that work, we have a situation at least in the short term in
  136
  which demand to use the airports of the south-east is moving towards the point at which capacity will be exhausted.
  The increasing imbalance between supply and demand potentially places airport operators in a strong bargaining position when it comes to negotiating user charges with airlines and other airport users. It is to counter that potential that airports are subject to economic regulation. That requires airports to maintain transparent accounts and to notify their scale of charges to the Civil Aviation Authority each year. The CAA has powers to investigate complaints of abuse of position and to issue conditions to prevent or to provide redress for abuse.
  At four UK airports—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester—economic regulation takes the form of a cap on user charges. That is set for a five-year period by the CAA, following an investigation by the Competition Commission. That provides downward pressure on charges, while giving the airport an incentive to greater efficiency.
  The hon. Gentleman argues that charges at Heathrow are too low and should be set at, or at least nearer to, market clearing levels. I admit that it is on the face of it odd that user charges should be falling in real terms at airports where demand considerably exceeds supply, but we must bear in mind that aviation is an international business and that the UK is party to a number of international agreements, as well as subject, in some areas, to European law.
  Guidelines for the setting of airport user charges are produced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to which the UK is a contracting state. Those guidelines currently start from the principle that charges should be cost related. They state that the calculation of cost should reflect the full cost of providing the airport and its essential ancillary services. They also state that revenue from non-aeronautical airport operations, such as retail and commercial activity, should be taken into account when setting airport charges. That is, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the so-called "single till" principle.
  ICAO guidelines provide a basis for the operation of airports and aviation throughout the world. Any decision to depart from them opens the possibility of reciprocal action in other countries. In the case of the UK, the guidelines are given greater weight by the fact that they were used in the preparation of the current bilateral air services agreement between the UK and the United States. We are committed to airport charges that are cost related; at present, we also apply the single till.
  Both the Competition Commission and the CAA will no doubt want to consider the impact of the single till and the ICAO guidelines during the investigation that will precede the setting of a new cap for Heathrow charges. Their preparatory work will start shortly and their freedom of action may be increased by recent developments at ICAO.
  I bring the hon. Gentleman news hot off the press. An ICAO conference in Montreal last week agreed to recommend to the ICAO ruling council that the current guidelines be amended to allow economic principles other than pure cost recovery to be taken into account when setting airport user charges. That may make it easier for charges to be modulated to demand patterns—which in

  137
  plain English means higher charges at peak times than at others—or to rise to reflect overall demand for use of the airport.
  Mr. David Taylor: Does that new departure allow for the incorporation into the charging regime of a contribution towards the environmental costs that are incurred by people who live in and around airports?
  Mr. Hill: I hope to come to that point in due course. It is important. The hon. Member for Twickenham has already raised it. It is a point very well taken.
  The conference considered the future of the single till. There was widespread agreement that full cross-subsidy of airport user charges from other sources of income may, at some airports, be inappropriate, having regard to local circumstances. The ICAO secretariat is to undertake a study of the implications of injecting more flexibility into the organisation's guidance on the subject. The results are due to be presented to the ICAO council in November. We await that report with interest.
  As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, in addition to airport charges, the allocation of take-off and landing slots is another key component that affects the efficient operation of airports. He will be well aware, I suspect, that that process is governed by European regulation EC 95/93. Where a slot co-ordinator is appointed, the Government approve the appointment, but have no other role in the process. The co-ordinator is charged with acting in an independent, neutral, transparent and non-discriminatory manner when allocating slots to airlines.
  Under the regulation, an airline that holds a slot in one operating season has first claim on it in the next equivalent season and indefinitely thereafter. Slots may be removed from their holder only when the airline fails to use them for at least 80 per cent. of the season. There is no other power of confiscation. At Heathrow, the overwhelming majority of slots are claimed under those grandfather rights. The remainder, together with any newly created ones, are placed in a pool for allocation.
  Although the regulation's purpose was to encourage competition and promote new entry to the market, a CAA study suggests that it has not been successful in that objective and because of the scarcity of slots—particularly peak hour ones at Heathrow—it has proved virtually impossible for a new entrant airline to obtain sufficient slots at suitable times to establish commercially viable services. It has also been difficult for an incumbent to get new slots to start a service—for example, to compete on a route already served by a rival. To develop new services or to increase frequency on an existing one, airlines have had to shuffle the portfolio of slots that they already hold, or reduce or even end other services.
  If the current system is not working well, what are the options for change? Obviously, the most suitable solution for airport users would be enhanced capacity so that there would be no difficulty in getting slots at the time that they want. While the White Paper work is in progress, I have to leave that option to one side. However, assuming
  138
  continued slot constraints, there are two possible routes: a different regulatory regime—which would, by its nature, have to be more interventionist—or use of the price mechanism. We await European Commission proposals for changes to the regulation. Those are expected later this year, and I cannot pre-empt the Government's response. Much will depend on the overall package proposed by the Commission, but I can consider the options in general terms.
  The basic problem is one of turnover. Incumbents have an indefinite hold over the slots that they have been allocated. The European Commission floated the idea that they should be required to hand back a percentage of slots each operating season so that those could be put in the slot pool and allocated from there, but it was not well received by member states and not pursued, although it remains a possibility. I would rule out direct Government intervention in the allocation process. The important principle of an independent co-ordinator has recently been affirmed by the ICAO at its conference. The Government are not attracted to the concept of ring-fencing slots for particular types of service. That would inhibit airlines' ability to respond to market demand without offering a solution to the real problem.
  If changed regulation has its limits, what of the price mechanism? The possibility of airlines trading slots among themselves has often been mooted. Some operate at Heathrow for reasons of prestige, although they could be accommodated elsewhere in the London airport system, but there is no incentive in the current system for them to surrender their slots. If such airlines could sell their slots in an open market, that would encourage them to think more carefully about the scale and location of their UK operations and enable use of the slots by a carrier that valued them more highly.
  It is common knowledge that airlines already use their ability under the European regulation to swap slots with each other as means of buying and selling on a grey market. That is, of course, imperfect. There is no transparency in the process and it is unlikely to be a mechanism for bringing new entrants into the market. For that reason, it has been argued that trading should be legitimised, with the availability of slots for sale made public and all parties open to bid. It has also been suggested that the traded slots should carry only time limited rights. There are arguments against slot trading that must be taken seriously. It would appear to favour the airlines with the deepest pockets, which would compound the dominance of the big airlines and alliances at a particular airport. However, that trend is already inherent in the airline industry.
  It is sometimes suggested that all slots should be surrendered and sold. That is not possible under the current European regulation, as there is no power of confiscation. Pressure will no doubt be put on the Government to argue for a change to enable that to happen when the European Commission publishes its proposals. One option for moving in that direction might be to auction the pool slots. Most of the existing slots in the pool would carry no significant value, but if newly created ones were subject to auction, that might be a start, particularly if such slots carried only a time-limited right of possession.
  The Government wish to see existing airport infrastructure used in a way that maximises benefit to the travelling public and to the British economy, within the

  139
  framework of sustainable development and environmental protection. Airport pricing policy and slot allocation are two key areas. We shall take careful account of the points that the hon. Member for Twickenham has made as we respond to the commission and prepare our consultation document on air transport policy.
  140
  Following the issue of that consultation document, there will be an opportunity for much more debate. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will wish to contribute. We shall welcome and look forward to that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Distress for Rent
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the practice of distress for rent. [128323]

  Mr. Lock
  The practice of distress for rent is currently being reviewed. I am aware that there are some concerns over this practice and, in particular, its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. We are investigating these concerns urgently and any problems identified will be addressed promptly.

  Name

  Grade

  Job title

  Section

  Work

  Mr. J. C. Barrett

  Grade 6

  Natural Resources Research Programme Manager

  Systems Management Office

  Management of the Natural Resources Systems Programme

  Dr. R. G. Poulter

  Grade 6

  Senior Natural Resources Adviser (Research)

  Natural Resources Research Department

  Advice on Research Policy issues, Liaison with the UK science base

  Ms F. J. Proctor

  Grade 6

  Senior Natural Resources Adviser

  West and North Africa Department

  Natural resources advice on bilateral and regional programmes to Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and Chad

  Ms S. Moorehead

  Band A2 (Grade 7 equivalent)

  Research Manager

  Economic Policy and Research Department

  Management of research commissioned by the DFID Advisory Committee on Economic and Social Research (ESCOR)

  Moluccas
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds Her Majesty's Government have allocated to provide humanitarian aid to those suffering in the conflict in the Moluccas. [128813]

  Clare Short
  My Department is not currently funding relief operations in the Moluccas, but is willing to do so if safe access is obtained to make the necessary needs assessments. The rise in violence is preventing effective and impartial humanitarian access and has forced most relief agencies to evacuate and suspend their operations. We will continue to monitor the situation through our contacts in the few remaining operational agencies and will reassess our inputs once the security situation stabilises and humanitarian access is once again guaranteed.

  A DFID team has just returned from Indonesia where they were advising the United Nations on possible options for engagement in conflict reduction activities. We have also seconded a humanitarian specialist to the United Nations in Jakarta. He is assisting with the co-operation of relief efforts throughout Indonesia, whether resulting from natural disasters or conflicts as in the Moluccas.

  UN Social Summit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's representation at the UN Social Summit in Geneva. [128714]

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 89W, on secondments, if she will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into her Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128252]

  Clare Short
  The figures given in the reply of 8 February referred to four individuals, all of whom were seconded for periods of more than 12 months and thus figured in the statistics for more than one of the years dealt with in the reply. The information required is as follows:

  Clare Short
  My Department's delegation to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session in Geneva last week, which followed up the Copenhagen Social Summit five years ago, was led by my Chief Social Development Adviser, supported by other senior DFID social development professionals and officials.

  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the status of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project. [128477]

  Clare Short
  Britain supported this project in the Bank Board meeting in June 1999 because it would bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. We also supported the Board conclusion that no funds would be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent Inspection Panel had conducted an investigation, and pending further environmental and social assessments.

  The report by the Independent Inspection Panel, and Bank Management's response to it, will be discussed at a World Bank Board meeting on 6 July 2000. We are looking very carefully at the conclusions of the Inspection Panel Report, and Management's response to it, in preparation for the Bank Board meeting.
  3W
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received concerning the status of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project. [128478]

  Clare Short
  I have received representations on the issue of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project from members of the public, from hon. Members and from organisations which concern themselves with the welfare of Tibetans.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent SPLA violations of the ceasefire in Bahr al-Ghazal, Sudan. [129074]

  Mr. Hain
  We have been following with grave concern reports of violations by the SPLA of the humanitarian ceasefire in Bahr al-Ghazal and in particular the attack on the town of Gogrial. We call on the SPLA and the Sudanese Government to exercise restraint, to respect humanitarian principles and the agreed ceasefire in that region and to work to negotiate a comprehensive, permanent, effectively monitored ceasefire throughout Sudan. We reaffirm our support for the peace efforts being made under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and firmly believe that only a negotiated settlement can bring all the people of Sudan the peace and stability they deserve.

  Indian Sub-continent (Nuclear Weapons)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances a licence is required to export strategic goods or technology to India or Pakistan; and what the Government's policy is regarding exports to nuclear or nuclear-related end-users in India and Pakistan. [129016]

  Mr. Hain
  A licence is required to export to India or Pakistan any goods or technology that are listed as subject to control in the legislation under which strategic export controls are implemented or any goods or technology subject to the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) end-use controls set out in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 3381/94 and Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) (b) and (c) of the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996.

  Where a licence is required then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), the then Minister of State, said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 10 July 1998, Official Report, columns 687–88W, we will not allow the export of items listed in the Nuclear Suppliers Group Dual-Use List to nuclear or nuclear-related end-users in India or Pakistan, nor any other goods to these end-users which could contribute to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programmes. The exception is equipment which would not normally require an export licence but is deemed licensable under the WMD end-use controls and where the initial concerns about WMD end-use are not subsequently substantiated.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees of his Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129091]

  Mr. Hain
  Four New Dealers have been recruited. This represents 1 per cent. of Band A1 staff (which is the grade at which we recruit New Dealers), and .07 per cent. of total staff.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the Government have(a) taken and (b) propose to take on modifying the UN Security Council resolutions governing the presence of United Nations forces in Sierra Leone. [127997]

  Mr. Hain
  We have actively supported the UN Secretary-General's initiatives to adapt UNAMSIL to meet changing circumstances; most recently leading the Security Council in adoption of resolution 1299 of 11 May 2000 to expand UNAMSIL from 11,100 to 13,000. We have been leading discussions on a further resolution on UNAMSIL in the Security Council, in the light of the Secretary-General's most recent report of 19 May 2000.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors he took into account in assessing the need for UK action in response to Security Council resolution 1289 concerning the increase in manpower of the UNAMSIL force in Sierra Leone. [127998]

  Mr. Hain
  We strongly support the UN's effort to help bring peace and stability to Sierra Leone. Since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1289 on 7 February 2000, we have provided an MOD team to help on the ground with UNAMSIL force deployment as well as our 15 UN military observers. We are also continuing to provide technical advice and support to UNAMSIL both in Freetown and New York.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to those countries which agreed to make a contribution to Sierra Leone through the Lomé Peace Accord but have(a) not or (b) only partly met the commitment they entered into; [128573]

  (2) if he will list the countries which agreed to make a contribution to Sierra Leone through the Lomé Peace Accord, but which did not make the contribution agreed or any contribution; and if he will make a statement; [128572]

  (3) if he will list those countries which have made contributions to Sierra Leone through the Lomé Peace Accord, indicating the amount of each contribution; and if he will make a statement; [128522]

  (4) if he will list those countries which agreed to make contributions to Sierra Leone through the Lomé Peace Accord, indicating the amount of money each country agreed to give; and if he will make a statement. [128521]
  5W
  Mr. Hain
  Following signature of the Lomé Peace Agreement, a number of countries and donor institutions pledged and provided political and financial support to help re-build Sierra Leone after eight years of brutal conflict.

  Around US$65 million was pledged at the international donor's conference, chaired by the Secretary of State for International Development in London on 27 March.

  Practical support from the international donor community will continue to be needed if lasting peace and stability is to be achieved in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) British and (b) other western nationals have been evacuated from Sierra Leone since 8 May. [127688]

  Mr. Hain
  125 British nationals and 49 other western nationals were evacuated by British forces from Sierra Leone since 8 May (the figure for other western nationals includes EU, US and Canadian nationals).

  Child Labour
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the implementation of ILO Convention No. 182 on the prohibition of child labour; and if he will make a statement. [127917]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK ratified ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour on 23 March 2000. The provisions of the Convention are met in the UK. The Government are committed to eradicating the exploitation of children. ILO Convention 182 represents an important step towards achieving this goal. The UK strongly supports the ILO in its campaign to encourage all ILO member states to ratify and implement the Convention as soon as possible. The UK is now considering how best to take bilateral action in support of the ILO campaign.

  European Social Charter
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on how many EU member states have ratified, and accepted as legally binding, the European Social Charter in whole or in part. [127913]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers was adopted by 11 of the then 12 EU member states in December 1998, with the UK dissenting. The Charter was declaratory and is not legally binding.

  Article 136 of the EC Treaty (Title XI), as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty 1997, mentions the Community Charter, alongside the European Social Charter 1961, within the context of the objectives of the social chapter of the Treaty. All 15 member states have ratified the Amsterdam Treaty.

  Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of EU member states which have ratified the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. [127914]
  6W
  Mr. Hain
  The Convention came into force on 1 December 1999. Three EU member states have ratified the Convention: Denmark, Greece and Spain. Seven have signed the Convention: Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.

  The Convention contains a mixture of devolved and reserved matters. The Government are considering the most appropriate way forward in the light of devolution.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols, with special reference to those parts which some EU member states have not agreed to ratify. [127995]

  Mr. Hain
  This year is the 50th Anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention has now been ratified by all 41 member states of the Council of Europe. It has become the Europe-wide standard for fundamental rights and freedoms providing, as its founders hoped, cohesive values and a bulwark against tyranny. In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998, which comes into force on 2 October 2000, will enshrine in UK law the guarantees provided by the Convention.

  Since the Convention's entry into force, a series of additional protocols have been adopted. Where these elaborate the rights set out in the Convention or add new rights, they are optional. Like other EU and Council of Europe states, the UK keeps under review its position with regard to those protocols it has not already ratified.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 June 2000,Official Report, column 295W, how many people are in the United Kingdom Government/Gibraltar Liaison Unit for EU Affairs which has been established in his Department. [128487]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Kingdom Government/Gibraltar Liaison Unit for EU Affairs was established on 1 June, within the Southern European Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Initially, three members of this Department have been allocated responsibility for running the Unit alongside their other duties. We will keep the resources of the Unit under review.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions of ZANU(PF) during the election campaign and on polling day in Zimbabwe. [128716]

  Mr. Hain
  We fully agree with the statement issued by Pierre Schori, the Head of the EU Observer Mission, in which he indicated that ZANU(PF) was responsible for the bulk of political violence
  during the election campaign. The two days of polling were peaceful and orderly.

  Serbia/Iraq Trade
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on financial and trade links between(a) Serbia and Iraq and (b) the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq. [126626]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: There are no reliable figures for FRY/Iraq trade but according to official FRY figures it does not appear to be a significant element in the FRY balance of payments. The FRY has participated in the UN's oil for food programme, bartering grain exports for oil.

  EU Political and Security Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items have been on the agenda of the EU Political and Security Committee since 1 January; and what decisions it has taken. [128505]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Interim Political and Security Committee started work on 1 March 2000. Since its establishment, the Committee's principal task has been to contribute to the preparation of the Council's decisions on the new European defence and security arrangements and in particular the Report and Annexes on European defence and security adopted by the European Council at Feira on 19–20 June. The Committee has also started to contribute to the Council's work on current CFSP issues, such as Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone.

  Moluccas
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian authorities to ensure that those responsible for the sectarian violence in the Moluccas are brought to trial. [128786]

  Mr. Battle
  EU representatives called on the Indonesian Government on 12 June to remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order, and to request an investigation and immediate steps to bring the perpetrators to justice. I issued a statement on 23 June, and saw the Indonesian Ambassador on 3 July. In the light of the alarming escalation of the violence, we and others are urging the Indonesian authorities to redouble efforts to take effective action.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent research on the effect on the nervous system of exposure to organophosphates. [126036]

  Ms Quin
  A Working Group of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) undertook an in-depth study in 1998 and 1999 of whether exposure to low doses of organophosphorus compounds can cause long-term adverse health effects. The Working Group considered the most recent research in this area. The COT' s Report to Ministers was published on 26 November 1999 and copies were placed in the Library of the House. Presentations from researchers working on OPs were made to a8W
  Scientific Workshop on 28 March 2000 which was organised by the Government. We hope shortly to call for proposals for further research in this important area.

  Lindane
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the health implications of Lindane. [127817]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF has received numerous representations from individuals and organisations concerning the pesticide Lindane. Most of these have expressed concern over the possible environmental or human health effects of the use of Lindane in this country.

  The Government act whenever necessary on pesticides in order to safeguard health and protect the environment. In the case of Lindane, using a precautionary assessment, independent scientific advice is that the currently approved agricultural uses of lindane do not pose any unacceptable risk to people. Ministers are currently considering the advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides on the home garden and non-agricultural uses of Lindane and will announce their conclusions as soon as possible.

  Pesticides and Fertilisers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU member states on establishing reciprocal recognition arrangements on the use of pesticides and fertilisers. [127663]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: All EU countries regulate the safety and efficacy of agricultural pesticides on the basis of scientific data under their respective national legislation. However, a gradual transition is already underway to an EC system of regulation which in addition to safeguarding people and the environment is also aimed at freeing the market in agricultural pesticides by achieving consistent standards between member states.

  As such it provides for the mutual recognition of pesticide product approvals and uses granted in other member states.

  Officials from the various member states are frequently in contact with each other to discuss the issues relating to harmonisation of the authorisation procedures and the regulation of agricultural pesticides.

  The EU has established procedures whereby fertiliser companies can seek to have products designated as "EC Fertilisers" thereby enabling those products to be sold in all member states. Non-EC designated fertiliser products may be sold to another member state only where they comply with that country's domestic legislation.

  Organic Farming
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 56W, on organic farming, what plans he has to undertake research into the balance of trade in organic produce in the last 12 months for

  9W
  which figures are available; and what representations have been made to him regarding the balance of trade in this respect. [126474]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: We have no plans at present to undertake such research.

  We have received a number of representations concerning the proportion of organic food which is imported, usually coupled with requests that support for organic conversion be increased. The Government have substantially increased funding for conversion: £12 million has been committed in the current financial year and we plan to spend £140 million on conversion aid over the life of the Rural Development Plan for England.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will press for additional compensation for sheep farmers affected by cuts in the sheep annual premium. [128058]

  Ms Quin
  There have been no recent changes in the way the sheep annual premium is calculated. As part of the Action Plan for Farming, the Prime Minister announced on 30 March that this year sheep farmers will receive £22 million to compensate for the effects of exchange rate fluctuations during 1999.

  Fishing (Russian Vessels)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the appearance of Russian blue water vessels off Rockall; and if he has assessed the consequences for UK haddock fishing. [128158]

  Mr. Morley
  This spring there was evidence of increased activity by Russian vessels fishing for haddock and other demersal stocks in international waters to the west of Rockall. Unregulated fishing of this kind risks undermining EU management measures aimed at conserving stocks. At the Fisheries Council in June we called upon the European Commission to press for the adoption of specific management measures by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) to constrain fishing in the area. We are supported by a number of other member states. The European Commission has undertaken to pursue the necessary action in NEAFC.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon.

  1999–2000 (Outturn)

  Population(1998 Census)

  Exchequer funding (£)

  Lottery draw-down (£)1

  Total (£)

  Per capita expenditure (£)

  England/Sport England

  49,495,000

  37,900,000

  250,686,000

  288,586,000

  5.83

  Scotland/Sport Scotland

  5,120,000

  10,100,000

  25,645,000

  35,745,000

  6.98

  Wales/Sports Council for Wales

  2,933,000

  6,799,000

  14,677,000

  21,476,000

  7.32

  Northern Ireland/Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  1,689,000

  2,380,000

  10,323,000

  12,703,000

  7.52

  UK Sport3

  —

  12,600,000

  15,357,000

  27,957,000

  —

  Football Licensing Authority

  —

  900,000

  —

  900,000

  —

  Total4

  59,237,000

  70,679,000

  316,688,000

  387,367,000

  6.54

  10W
  Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), of 10 February 2000, Official Report, column 292W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128246]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Further to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the secondee from the Royal Bank of Scotland worked in the Finance Unit at the Central Science Laboratory in York on the production of a report on operating procedures for contracts. The secondee from Manor Bakeries undertook a programme of visits within the Department.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport Funding
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Government spent per head of population on supporting sport in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in the last financial year; what the planned figure is for 2000–01; and what assessment he has made of such spending in other EU member states. [127127]

  Kate Hoey
  The information requested by the hon. Member is included in the table.

  Exchequer and Lottery funding for sport is channelled primarily through the four home nation sports councils (Sport England, SportScotland, Sports Council for Wales, Sports Council for Northern Ireland) and the UK Sports Council (UK Sport). Funding is also provided to the Football Licensing Authority, which is charged with ensuring the implementation of Government policy regarding grounds at which designated football matches are played. Support for sport and recreation is also provided by local Government expenditure.

  No direct comparison of expenditure on sport by EU member states has been made by my Department or the Sports Councils. Meaningful comparisons are difficult because of the way in which sport is structured and financed from country to country.
  11W

  2000–01 (Plans)

  Population(1998 Census)

  Exchequer funding (£)

  Lottery draw-down forecasts (£)2

  Total forecast (£)

  Per capita expenditure forecast (£)

  England/Sport England

  49,495,000

  37,973,000

  355,500,000

  393,473,000

  7.95

  Scotland/Sports Scotland

  5,120,000

  10,309,000

  30,600,000

  40,909,000

  7.99

  Wales/Sports Council for Wales

  2,933,000

  7,417,000

  14,281,000

  21,698,000

  7.40

  Northern Ireland/Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  1,689,000

  2,322,000

  10,230,000

  12,552,000

  7.43

  UK Sport3

  —

  12,600,000

  23,060,000

  35,660,000

  —

  Football Licensing Authority

  —

  900,000

  —

  900,000

  —

  Total4

  59,237,000

  71,521,000

  433,671,000

  505,192,000

  8.53

  1 The figures are taken from the National Lottery Awards database which uses information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  2 Data are based on information provided by the distributing bodies.

  3 UK Sport provides support to those sporting programmes and policies that are of benefit for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is not possible to determine the amount of benefit provided by UK Sport to sport in individual home countries.

  4 In addition, Local Authority estimated outturn on current and capital expenditure on sport and recreation activities in 1999–2000 totalled £767 million in England and £55 million in Wales. Expenditure details for 1999–2000 for Scotland and Northern Ireland and Planning figures for 2000–01 are not available.

  Spoliation Panel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Spoliation Panel inquiry into works of art looted by the Nazis has met; and if he will make a statement. [128118]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: The first meeting of the Spoliation Advisory Panel was held on Thursday 8 June. To date, the Panel is aware of only one claim—that of Jan Griffier the Elder's View of Hampton Court Palace—which was acquired by the Tate in 1961. On 12 June, the Panel issued a news release inviting both the claimants and the Tate to submit their case as soon as possible. The Panel desires to complete its proceedings on this claim as rapidly as possible consistent with proper consideration of the evidence.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what, at constant prices, has been the cost of maintenance projects in each year since 1991–92 at the occupied Royal Palaces after deducting the costs of the exceptional rewiring programme in hand at the time of the Windsor fire, and the costs relating to the restoration after that fire. [128461]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The costs are as follows:

  £0001

  1991–92

  14,999

  1992–93

  10,768

  1993–94

  9,105

  1994–95

  10,637

  1995–96

  12,547

  1996–97

  11,630

  1997–98

  7,437

  1998–99

  7,392

  1999–2000

  6,788

  1 Excluding minor maintenance costing less than £2,500

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in each year since 1993–94, what has been the(a) gross income and (b) net income from charges to visit Buckingham Palace; and to which Department the income was paid. [128460]
  12W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The gross income and net income from charges to visit Buckingham Palace in each year since 1993–94 are as follows:

  £000

  Net income

  Gross income

  WCFR1

  RCT2

  1993–94

  2,277

  1,391

  0

  1994–95

  2,662

  1,398

  0

  1995–96

  2,948

  1,667

  0

  1996–97

  2,812

  1,686

  0

  1997–98

  2,353

  1,080

  0

  1998–99

  2,505

  1,066

  0

  1999–2000

  2,349

  0

  907

  1 Windsor Castle Fire Restoration Project

  2 Royal Collection Trust

  The net income accrues to the Royal Collection Trust rather than to any Government Department. Just under £8.3 million has been contributed toward the cost of the Windsor Castle Fire Restoration Project. Having completed the Fire Restoration Project, the net income has been retained by the Royal Collection Trust to fund ongoing conservation of the Royal Collection and the project to re-develop the Queen's Gallery.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in each year since 1993–94 what has been the(a) gross income and (b) net surplus from charges to visit Windsor Castle precincts. [128459]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No gross income is attributable to the Windsor Castle precincts as visitors buy one ticket which covers the State Apartments, Queen Mary's Dolls House, St. George's Chapel, the exhibition and the precincts. The net surplus from charges to visit Windsor Castle precincts in each year since 1993–94 is as follows:

  £000

  1993–94

  1100

  1994–95

  1,616

  1995–96

  1,908

  1996–97

  2,257

  1997–98

  2,381

  1998–99

  3,416

  1999–2000

  2,400

  1 Charges for entry to the Windsor Castle precincts introduced on 4 January 1994

  Hollywood Films
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has(a) received and (b) made regarding allegations of anti-British bias in Hollywood films; and if he will make a statement. [128815]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received a number of letters from members of the public about historical misrepresentation in Hollywood films, and while it is not for the Government formally to intervene in the creative process of film-making, I have made my personal views on the subject clear and will do so again when appropriate occasions arise.

  Tourist Industry (Crime)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the effect of a rise in the crime rate on the tourist industry. [128814]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The vast majority of tourists to Britain have a safe and enjoyable visit. Misleading comparisons of crime in Britain with that in the United States are of course unhelpful; but we expect to welcome many overseas visitors to Britain this year, four million of whom are expected to come from the United States alone. The Government are, of course, determined to tackle violent crime and are providing resources to address the issue.

  United Kingdom Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts have been let by the United Kingdom Sports Institute; for what purposes; and if he will make a statement. [128812]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has asked both Sport England and UK Sport to provide the information requested, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Foreign Countries)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the foreign countries where people claiming social security benefits currently reside; and how many customers of his Department reside in each such country. [127351]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 June 2000]: Such information as is available has been placed in Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 256W, on child support, if the new criminal offences for providing false information will apply retrospectively; and if he will make a statement. [128153]
  14W
  Angela Eagle
  It would not be appropriate under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights for such provisions to have retrospective effect, allowing prosecution for an act or omission which was not a criminal offence at the time it was committed.

  Ancillary Employees
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest position regarding the payment of Jobseeker's Allowances to school ancillary employees during the school holidays. [128293]

  Angela Eagle
  The current legal position, confirmed by the Court of Appeal in October 1999, is that ancillary workers with an on-going contract of employment, who are not entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or Income Support (IS) during term-time because of the hours they work, are also not entitled to JSA or IS during the school holidays. We understand that leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal decision was granted on 11 April.

  Where any doubts exist over entitlement to JSA or Income Support, school ancillary workers may make a claim, which will be decided on an individual basis. School ancillary workers with low incomes may still claim in-work benefits such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Those with children may also be eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects men aged between 60 and 64 years in the West Chelmsford Constituency to receive their Winter Fuel Allowance; and if he will make a statement on the delays in paying it to them. [128320]

  Angela Eagle
  Retrospective payments for previous years winter fuel payments started to be paid in the week commencing 26 June 2000 in line with our targets. The payments will be issued as claims are processed and are not defined into postcoded areas. Some customers in West Chelmsford may have already received their payment and the remainder will receive them over the coming months as claims are received and processed.

  Mr. John Ward
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will investigate the treatment by SEMA and by the Benefits Agency of Mr. John Ward, a constituent whose address has been supplied to him; and if he will make a statement. [124877]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]: This matter has now been fully investigated. Due to the Data Protection Act 1998 I have written to my hon. Friend privately.

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 480W, on the state pension, if he will estimate the cost of Option (b), an increase of £5 in the rate of the basic state pension and the introduction of age additions of £5 for pensioners aged 75 to 79 and £10 for

  15W
  pensioners aged 80 years or over, on the basis that the age additions for those aged 75 to 79 or 80 years and over are paid in full, regardless of contribution record. [128605]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  £ billion

  Gross

  Net of means-tested benefits and income tax

  2001–02

  4.6

  3.1

  2002–03

  4.7

  3.2

  2003–04

  4.7

  3.2

  2004–05

  4.8

  —

  2005–06

  4.8

  —

  Notes:

  1. Figures include the cost of benefits whose rates are linked to the rate of basic Retirement Pension.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion and are in 2000–01 price terms.

  3. Gross costs estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of income-related benefit savings are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model. Income tax revenues estimated by the Inland Revenue.

  4. Estimates of income tax revenues not available beyond 2003–04.

  5. Age related increase uprated in line with RPI, as in previous reply.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the annual cost would have been in respect of pensioners in Scotland if the level of the state pension for(a) single pensioners and (b) couples had been uprated in line with earnings from May 1997. [128064]

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

  Gross cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with earnings for pensioners in Scotland from April 1998

  £ million

  Gross cost

  1998–99

  20

  1999–2000

  70

  2000–01

  200

  Notes:

  1. Costs estimated by the Government Actuary's Department are in 2000–01 price terms. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Costs include those benefits whose rates are linked to the rate of basic retirement pension.

  3. Assumed rates of earnings growth are based on the seasonally adjusted average earnings index for the three months to July of the previous year, as originally published.

  4. Separate estimates for singles and couples are not available.

  5. Costs net of means-tested benefit savings are not available.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 213W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124820]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 June 2000, c. 290W]: All four of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less.
  16W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109293]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 February 2000, c. 213W]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All Sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  For the periods in question, four private sector staff are recorded as having been seconded to the Department. One was from the Guardian Media Group plc between September 1997 and December 1997, one from Sacker and Partners between October 1997 and February 1998, one from Oracle from March 1998 to September 1998 and the final one from CSL Managed Services between August 1999 and February 2000. Other inward secondments of three months or more recorded centrally in the above periods were mainly from local government and other parts of the public sector outside the Civil Service.

  Heating Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis he has made of the annual financial benefit in respect of pensioners resulting from the reduction of the rate of VAT on heating fuel; and if he will make a statement. [127586]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  Customs and Excise estimate that households in which the head is of State Pension Age and economically inactive will benefit on average by around £13 in 2000–01 due to the reduced rate of VAT on fuel and power.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Corruption and Bribery
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 351W, on corruption and bribery, if he will list the number of cases in the last five years where the ECGD judged (a) the level of commission to be excessive and (b) the payment procedures unusual, indicating the companies concerned and the reasons why cover was refused. [128571]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the last five years there have been no cases where the levels of commission were deemed to be excessive or where there were unusual payment procedures.

  Our customers understand and abide by our procedures in this regard.

  Deer Management Qualifications Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department was informed that Deer Management Qualifications Ltd., Registration Number 3449049, was continuing to trade from a new registered office at Wrexham. [128568]

  Dr. Howells
  Deer Management Qualifications Ltd. has not informed Companies House of any change of address of their registered office, and remained at 381 Kingsway, Hove, East Sussex, the original address, until struck off and dissolved in September 1999.

  A representative of the former company subsequently wrote from Wrexham on 28 December 1999 claiming that the organisation of that name was still trading. Information on restoration was sent in January 2000, but no application for restoration has been received to date.

  In the interim, a new company, Deer Management Communications Ltd., Registration Number 4019145, has been incorporated.

  MCI WorldCom Sprint Merger
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has received regarding the proposed merger of MCI WorldCom and Sprint. [128493]

  Dr. Howells
  This case fell to the consideration of the EC competition authorities under the EC Merger Regulation (ECMR) and the Commission prohibited the proposed deal on 28 June.

  It is not our policy to disclose the identity or content of representations on cases so that interested parties may comment freely without any concern that their comments might then be disclosed.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government have made to the European Commission regarding the MCI WorldCom Sprint merger. [128494]

  Dr. Howells
  This case fell to the consideration of the EC competition authorities under the EC Merger Regulation (ECMR) and the Commission prohibited the proposed deal on 28 June.

  Company names

  Grade

  Section

  1 May 1997–30 April 1998

  The Export Association

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  North Cape (Scotland) Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Bank of Ireland

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Rover Group Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Reyrolle Projects Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Grant Thornton

  PR 7

  Small and Medium Enterprise Policy

  Drinks Marketing Consortium

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  European Gas Turbines-GEC Alstrom

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Ericsson Ltd.

  PR 11

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Prince Associates

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Telecom plc

  SCS

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Littlejon Frazer

  PR 9

  Company Law and Investigations

  The Institute of Export

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Arthur Andersen

  PR 8

  Insurance Directorate

  18W
  Member states have a formal role in the ECMR process. However, in order to protect the integrity of the ECMR process, member states do not disclose the line they took on individual cases.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the licensed production agreement between Pains Wessex (Schermuly) and SME Ordnance in Malaysia for the production of(a) low enforcement pyrotechnics, (b) CS irritant cartridges and (c) CS canisters; [128281]

  (2) if he will list the licensed production agreements between British and Malaysian defence companies. [128280]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 117W.

  However, I would also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, on 12 January 1999, Official Report, columns 149–50W. The response to the Committee, referred to in this answer, was published on 23 February 1999, HC270.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), of 11 February 2000,Official Report, column 313W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128244]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: Giving the information in the format as set out in my answer of 11 February, details of the DTI grades of the posts filled and the Directorate in which the secondees were placed are given in the table.

  For data protection and privacy reasons it is not possible to give names of individuals.

  The Department has a long-standing programme of interchange with the private sector to promote the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before a secondment can occur, all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.
  19W

  Company names

  Grade

  Section

  Deloitte and Touche

  PR 10

  Regional Assistance

  NHS Supplies

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Herbert Smith

  PR 10

  Consumer Affair Competition Policy

  Mobil

  PR 10

  Oil and Gas

  Hyder plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  EPSRC

  PR 7

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  PR 9

  Company Law and Investigations

  ERTL Europe Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Telecom plc

  PR 10

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  BT International Business

  PR 10

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  Nuclear Electric plc

  PR 10

  Nuclear Industries Directorate

  Frank Roberts and Sons Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Barclays Bank plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Silver Altman

  PR 9

  Company Law and Investigations

  Guinness Brewing Worldwide Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  PR 10

  Insurance Directorate

  Anglian Water International UK

  PR 10

  Infrastructure and Energy Projects

  Hambros Bank Ltd.

  SCS

  Regional Assistance

  General Accident/CGU Insurance

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Beaumont Colson Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  AWE plc

  PR 10

  Nuclear Industries Directorate

  Epinet Communications plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Matra Marconi Space

  PR 10

  British National Space Centre

  Barclays Bank plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  PR 10

  Regional Assistance

  Reuters Ltd.

  PR 10

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Lee and Allen Consulting plc

  PR 9

  Company Law and Investigations

  CERN

  SCS

  Simpler Trade Procedures

  HSBC Holdings plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  University of Greenwich

  PR 10

  Low Pay

  Toyoboshi UK Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Institute of Exports

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Westcountry Development Corporation

  PR 10

  Government Office South West

  Hydro Technologies Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Crown Agents Overseas Government and Administration

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Cable and Wireless plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  GEC Marconi Avionics Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Cookstown Enterprise Centre Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Sonic Communications

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Unipart International

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Natural Animal Feeds Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Russo-British Chamber of Commerce

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Eschmann Bros and Walsh Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Arthur Andersen

  PR 10

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  The Hosiery Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Delamore Associates Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Lockstair Ltd.

  PR 10

  Engineering Industries Directorate

  1 May 1998–30 April 1999

  The British Petroleum Company plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British-Israel Chamber of Commerce

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Matheson and Co Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Lloyds TSB Group plc

  PR 10

  Small and Medium Enterprise Policy

  The Hosiery Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  The British Petroleum Company plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  ICL

  PR 10

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  East European Trade Council

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  British Aerospace plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Telecom plc

  PR 10

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  British Marine Equipment Council Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  E A Technology Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  AEA Technology

  PR 10

  Office of Science and Technology

  Slaughter and May

  PR 7

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development

  PR 10

  Office of Science and Technology

  Knight Piesold Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  AEA Technology plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Knight Piesold Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  EPSRC

  PR 7

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  PWR (Electrical Services) Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  PR 10

  Nuclear Industries Directorate

  Hewlett-Packard Ltd.

  SCS

  Office of Science and Technology

  East Europe Trade Council

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  20W 21W

  Company names

  Grade

  Section

  Enterprise Ayrshire

  PR 10

  Infrastructure and Energy Projects

  British Telecom

  PR 7

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Herbert Smith

  PR 10

  Utilities Review Team

  British Consulate General Osaka

  PR 10

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  Polish Social and Cultural Association Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Moody Cashmere Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Abercairn of Scotland Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Grant Thornton

  PR 9

  Small and Medium Enterprise Policy

  Financial Service Authority

  PR 6

  Insurance Directorate

  GK Communications Group Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  AEA Technology plc

  PR 10

  Office of Science and Technology

  British American Tobacco Company

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Aspen Waite Chartered Accountants

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  ICI Group

  PR 9

  Office of Science and Technology

  Masters International (UK) Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  GKN Westland Helicopters

  PR 10

  Engineering Industries Directorate

  Gardenex

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  British Aerospace Aviation

  PR 10

  Infrastructure and Energy Projects

  Trade Development Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  ACO Technologies plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Independent Power Corporation plc

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Freeman Rich Chartered Accountants

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  SMMT Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Ernst and Young Services Ltd.

  PR 10

  Regional Assistance

  Reuters Ltd.

  PR 10

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Elizabeth Emanuel Enterprises Ltd.

  PR 10

  European Policy

  East European Trade Council

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Simmons and Simmons

  PR 6

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  ICL

  PR 10

  Futures Unit

  Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

  SCS

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Brown and Root AOC

  PR 11

  Infrastructure and Energy Projects

  LGC Ltd.

  PR 8

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  1 May 1999–8 February 2000

  Rover Group Ltd.

  SCS

  Export Promotion

  Moy Park Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Robson Rhodes

  PR 10

  Regional Assistance

  The Building Centre Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Newbrook Engineering Co. Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Medical Research Council

  PR 6

  Ministerial Parliamentary Support

  Mott MacDonald Group Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Darwin Instruments Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  The Beaver Housing Society Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  GKN plc

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  William Santus and Co. Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  The Wellcome Trust

  PR 7

  Office of Science and Technology

  Knight Peisold Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  PR 9

  Company Law and Investigations

  The Export Association

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Proactive Associates Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Telecom

  PR 7

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Reuters Ltd.

  PR 10

  Joint Export Promotion

  West India Committee

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  David Stanley Associates Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Mivan Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Natwest Group

  SCS

  Regional Policy

  Shaw Trust Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  British Telecom

  PR 10

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  AstraZeneca

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Black Isle Consultants Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Unipath Ltd.

  PR 8

  Office of Science and Technology

  The Symphony Group plc

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Binnie Black and Veatch Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  John Laing International Ltd.

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Simmons and Simmons

  PR 6

  Communication and Information Ind Dir

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  PR 10

  Oil and Gas

  AstraZeneca

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Grant Thornton

  PR 10

  Small and Medium Enterprise Policy

  ONE North East

  PR 6

  Invest in Britain Bureau

  BHP Petroleum Ltd.

  PR 10

  Futures Unit

  Phoenix Timber Group plc

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Biwater International Ltd.

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  22W 23W

  Company names

  Grade

  Section

  Gardenex

  PR 11

  Export Promotion

  Linklaters and Alliance

  PR 10

  Competition Policy

  Middle East Association

  PR 10

  Export Promotion

  Science Systems (Space) Ltd.

  PR 10

  British National Space Centre

  Trades Union Congress

  PR 11

  Employment Relations

  KCA Drilling Ltd.

  PR 8

  Oil and Gas

  Imperial Chemical Industries Plc

  PR 10

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance his Department is giving to support offshore wind generator research, development and manufacturing; and if he will make a statement. [128145]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government recognise the potential of the offshore wind energy industry both in the UK and internationally. Accordingly, offshore wind energy is a priority area within my Department's research and development programme for new and renewable energy.

  The programme has so far committed £790,000 in two projects. One will monitor and evaluate the installation and performance of the UK's first offshore installation of two 2 MW turbines being installed off Blyth Harbour this summer. The other is supporting the development of a new rotor hub, aimed at the offshore market, being assembled in the UK using UK components. In addition, the programme also has several high-value research proposals currently under consideration to develop and evaluate installation systems and techniques for offshore wind farms with prospects for reducing costs.

  A further aim of our programme is to establish the environmental effects of offshore wind farms. A project providing an initial assessment of all the potential effects has been completed and is being followed up by scoping studies focusing on the effects on sea wild life, birds and coastal processes such as erosion and deposition.

  The Government are also considering the scope for additional support for offshore wind in the context of the new renewables obligation.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential contribution of offshore wind energy to electricity production; and if he will make a statement. [128146]

  Mrs. Liddell
  An analysis of the potential contribution of offshore wind energy and other renewable energy technologies was produced for my Department in March 1999 by the Energy Technical Support Unit (ETSU) and formed the Supporting Analysis to the Consultation Document on Renewable Energy then published. A copy of the Supporting Analysis is in the Library of the House.

  The UK's wind resources are potentially much greater offshore than onshore. They are limited only by practicable working water depths, the use of maritime areas for other activities, and the costs of achieving linkage with the onshore electrical network. Moving from onshore to offshore need not require major changes in the technology, but additional technical problems arise because of the more hostile environment. Offshore installations could increase the contribution from wind power substantially.

  Hyperlinking
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what interest the Government hold in a patent on hyperlinking; and if he will make a statement. [128322]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government hold no interest in any patents on hyperlinks.

  Magnox Fuel
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the technical papers on the dry storage of previously wet stored magnox fuel that he has commissioned; and if he will place copies of all such papers in the Library. [127962]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has commissioned no such technical papers. Government policy is that the owners of spent fuel are responsible for its management subject to meeting regulatory requirements.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the net savings to the Exchequer in each of the next 10 years from restricting export credit guarantees to non-military exports; and if he will make a statement. [127502]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: If the hon. Gentleman's question is intended to ascertain the effect of a general restriction on export credit guarantees to non-military exports, the answer is that I do not envisage any net savings given that ECGD supported business caught by it would have been priced and managed with a view to at least breaking even. Additionally, while such a restriction would tend to reduce ECGD's exposure to interest make-up risk, it cannot be predicted at the outset whether this would generate net savings or expenditure for the Exchequer.

  Indeed there would be a cost to the Exchequer from such a general restriction arising not only from forgone tax revenues which would arise otherwise from business thwarted by the restriction but also from any consequent reduction in employment.

  If however the question is intended simply to elucidate the effect of the Chancellor's announcement of 11 January, extending the UK's unilateral ban on export credits in respect of "unproductive expenditure" to include a further 22 countries, then assuming recent trading patterns continue I would not envisage any costs or savings to the Exchequer given that, from information readily available, the £775 million business with these countries supported by ECGD guarantees over the last five years falls within the productive expenditure criteria against which future export credit business will be assessed.

  Electricity Consumers Committees
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the regional electricity consumers committees. [128024]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The new Gas and Electricity Consumers Council (GECC), being established under the Utilities Bill, will replace the Gas Consumers Council and the electricity consumers committees. An announcement was made in both Houses on 23 June on GECC's future organisation. It will have a head office based in London, an office in Glasgow serving Scotland, one in Cardiff serving Wales and further offices in Manchester, Birmingham, London, Newcastle and Bournemouth serving England.

  Engineering
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations were represented at the meeting on 23 May to discuss the work of the Hawley Review Group; and what was the outcome of the meeting. [127736]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 June 2000, c. 456W]: Unfortunately the list of organisations shown in the answer was incomplete. Following is the full list:

  AEA Technology

  BAE Systems

  BioIndustry Association

  British Computer Society

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors & Principals of the Universities of the UK

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Engineering and Marine Training Authority

  Engineering Council

  Engineering Employers' Federation

  Federation of Electronics Industries

  Forum for the Future

  Institution of Chemical Engineers

  Institution of Civil Engineers

  Institution of Electrical Engineers

  Institution of Incorporated Engineers

  Institution of Mechanical Engineers

  Marconi plc

  Nortel Networks

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  Scottish Executive

  Transport & General.

  After discussing a report from the Chairman of the Engineering Council, Dr. Robert Hawley, those present expressed their support for the work to date of the Hawley Group and confirmed their support for the future direction of the project.

PRIME MINISTER

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answers of 7 June 2000,Official Report, column 288, and 14 June 2000, Official Report, column 934, if he will reconcile the figures given in the two answers for the number of jobs created under the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [127588]

  The Prime Minister
  Over 250,000 people have found jobs as a result of the New Deal, 210,000 of whom have been young people.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [128009]

  The Prime Minister
  Of the 454 written answers I provided within the specified period, 41 were in answer to questions pursuant to previous answers.

SCOTLAND

  Tall Ships Race
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic impact of the Tall Ships Race in Scotland. [127714]

  Dr. Reid
  I understand that Inverclyde Council and Renfrewshire Enterprise commissioned an economic impact evaluation of the visit of the Cutty Sark Tall Ships Race to Greenock in summer 1999. This showed that new expenditure of £8.5 million was generated in the Inverclyde Council area. It was estimated that this level of expenditure would support a notional 248 jobs for one year in Inverclyde.

  Assisted Areas
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from(a) hon. Members, (b) MSPs, (c) local councils and (d) local enterprise companies in connection with the definition of assisted area status submitted to the Commission on 10 April. [128561]

  Dr. Reid
  I have received the following representations in connection with the definition of assisted area status submitted to the Commission on 10 April:

  (a) 12 from hon. Members (six of these hon. Members are also MSPs but they have not been included in the number at (b))

  (b) Eight from MSPs

  (c) 19 from local councils

  (d) Five from local enterprise companies.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of tolls paid at the Skye Bridge tollbooth, after discounts, goes towards paying back the money owed on the project. [128286]
  27W
  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for tolls paid on the Skye Bridge is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Fisheries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of angler-caught(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout caught in Scotland in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate of the number of each of these three categories of fish taken by seals in Scottish waters in each of these years. [128854]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on catches up to 1998, the latest year for which statistics have been published, are contained in the Statistical Bulletin, Fisheries Series published by the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library. Information on the number of salmon, grilse and sea trout taken by seals is not available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decision of the Greater Belfast Coroner not to hold an inquest into the murder of Robert Hamill. [127719]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision of whether or not an inquest is held is entirely a matter for HM Coroner.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are concerned that an inquest will not be held in Mr. Hamill's case and have asked for all the facts to be made available to us.

  Fisheries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout caught by anglers in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate of the number of each of these three categories of fish taken by seals in Northern Ireland waters in each of these years. [128853]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

HEALTH

  Influenza
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many influenza vaccinations were given in the run-up to the winter of(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the flu vaccination programme in each of these periods; and what assessment he has made of the incidence of flu in the (i) immunised and (ii) non-immunised groups in each of those periods. [127302]
  28W
  Yvette Cooper
  Manufacturers' data show that 7.6 million doses of influenza vaccine were distributed for winter 1998–99 and 7.8 million for 1999–2000.

  Data on the incidence of flu in immunised and non-immunised groups are not routinely collected. Efficacy data are based on published studies, some of which have spanned several years, showing that current available influenza vaccine gives 70–80 per cent. protection against infection with influenza virus strains related to those in the vaccine. In the elderly, protection against infection may be less, but immunisation has been shown to reduce the incidence of pneumonia, hospital admissions and deaths.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total NHS trust extra contractual referrals for 1997–98(a) from GP fundholding practices and (b) from health authorities, excluding GP fundholding practices; [124380]

  (2) if he will publish, for each trust completing table 1 on pages 17 to 19 of "The New NHS Guidance on Out of Area Treatment Consultation Paper", the total trust adjustment for columns B, C and D. [124379]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: The consultation on "The New NHS: Guidance on Out of Area Treatment Consultation Paper" took place between May and July 1998. In the light of this the information requirements for the out-of-area treatment (OAT) data collection exercise were modified.

  The exercise to establish the 1999–2000 OAT adjustments was led by National Health Service trusts. It was carried out in two stages.

  At stage 1, NHS trusts identified their 1997–98 extra contractual referral (ECR) income from health authorities and cost per case income from general practitioner fundholders. They then reduced these amounts to take account of activity that had already been put into contracts or service agreements. The data were validated by health authorities and submitted to regional offices. These data are shown in columns A and B of the table that has been placed in the Library.

  At stage 2, the amounts established at stage 1 were analysed by NHS trusts. In agreement with health authorities the amounts were further reduced to take account of the activity which would be covered by new or expanded service agreements in 1999–2000. The amounts not covered by service agreements formed the base for the 1999–2000 OAT adjustment. This is shown in column C of the table. These figures, uplifted by 8.5 per cent., comprise the 1999–2000 OATs adjustment.

  The information collected to establish the 1999–2000 OAT adjustment was provided by NHS trusts. The figures were derived from NHS trust ECRs but do not represent the totality of NHS trust ECRs.

  The amounts in column C of table 1 formed the basis of the OAT adjustments made to health authorities.
  29W
  Table 2, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, shows NHS trusts' 1997–98 forecast ECR and cost per case income. This information was collected as part of the in-year financial monitoring returns.

  The figures in tables 1 and 2 are not comparable.

  TV Advertisements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 356W, on television advertisements, if he will list the advertisements which were not provided with closed caption subtitling. [128518]

  Ms Stuart
  Further to the answer given on 26 June, I regret the information given the hon. Member was incorrect and the total number provided with closed caption subtitling was 32.

  The three advertisements commissioned without closed caption subtitling were:

  Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM)

  Nurse Recruitment 2000—"Joe" (60 seconds version)

  Nurse Recruitment 2000—"Joe" (30 seconds version).

  Meat Inspection Charges Task Force
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his response to the report of the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force. [R] [128735]

  Ms Stuart
  We are grateful to the Task Force and its chairman for the thorough and comprehensive investigation they have carried out into this complex issue. We are now urgently considering the Task Force's recommendations and will announce its conclusions once that consideration is complete.

  Health Action Zones
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role health action zones will play in addressing the decline in children's activity levels and the increase in the number of overweight children; and if he will make a statement. [128385]

  Mr. Hutton
  All health action zones are working towards the key aims of reducing health inequalities and modernising services in the most deprived parts of England. HAZ programmes include a number of projects that focus on exercise and diet for children.

  Care Leavers
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have left local authority care since the implementation of the Children Act 1989 in(a) England and (b) Wales. [128776]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated number of children who have ceased to be looked after in England between the implementation of the Children Act 1989 (14 October 1991) and 31 March 1999 is 190,000.

  The provision of data for Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.
  30W
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average size of the grant made by local authorities to care leavers going into(a) further education and (b) higher education; [128775]

  (2) how many young people who were in local authority care have been awarded a university degree during the past year in England and during the previous two years in (a) England and (b) Wales. [128777]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information relating to England is not available centrally.

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

  Hospitals (Adverse Incident Report)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent advice he has issued to hospitals on the circumstances in which they must produce an adverse incident report. [128479]

  Ms Stuart
  In November 1999, the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), launched a series of standards underpinning the National Health Service Executive's "controls assurance" project. One of the standards outlines a number of key components of an effective system of risk management that all NHS hospitals must subscribe to, including incident reporting. A key criterion contained in the "risk management system" standard requires NHS hospitals to ensure that Incidents, including ill health, are systematically identified, recorded and reported to management in accordance with an agreed policy of positive, non-punitive reporting.
  Guidance supporting this criterion elaborates on certain circumstances requiring an adverse incident to be reported, and to whom. Further specific guidance is planned based around a more comprehensive "incident recording and reporting" standard which is currently being developed by the NHS Executive to augment the guidance contained in the Controls Assurance risk management system standard, and to underpin incident reporting requirements forming part of a new national incident reporting system planned in response to the Chief Medical Officer's recently issued report "An Organisation with a Memory".

  GM Foods
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has given to research into the long-term effects on human health of eating GM foods. [128294]

  Ms Stuart
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) has considered the practicality of post-market health surveillance for all novel foods, including genetically modified foods. Based on their advice, a feasibility study is due to start in July to test the robustness of data collection procedures. The results of this study will then be assessed by the ACNFP.

  MS Patients
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for nurses to be employed by health authorities specifically to advise and help MS patients. [128773]
  31W
  Mr. Denham
  It is for individual National Health Service trusts and health authorities to determine the number, grade and mix of staff they will require to deliver services.

  A partnership arrangement between The Multiple Sclerosis Society and the NHS has been set up to contribute to the development of MS specialist nurses. The funding arrangements include a formal evaluation of the nurses' roles that are being developed through this interesting partnership arrangement. There are currently around 70 of these specialist nurses. The further development of specialist nursing posts, however, is a matter for NHS commissioners and providers to determine as an integral part of neurological services.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if UK trials to validate myelin as a drug for MS patients have begun; and if he will make a statement. [128321]

  Ms Stuart
  No clinical trials have been authorised in the United Kingdom.

  Cannabis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects Government research into the use of cannabis for medical purposes to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [128765]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently two trials underway. The first, a three-year study to attempt to measure the therapeutic efforts of cannabis extract in people with multiple sclerosis, is due to report early in 2004. This study has received £950,000 from the Medical Research Council.

  The second trial is being managed by GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. with the aim of developing a cannabis-based medicine. Initial findings from this trial are expected later this year.

  Electronically Powered Wheelchairs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has given to(a) health authorities and (b) NHS trusts regarding the provision of electronically powered wheelchairs. [128713]

  Mr. Hutton
  Comprehensive guidance on the introduction of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (with phased funding between 1996–97/1999–2000) was issued to the National Health Service in May 1996 (Health Service Guidance (96)34).

  On 31 May this year, all health authorities were notified of their recurring allocations from 1 April 2000 for the continuation of the powered wheelchair and voucher scheme initiatives. This letter advised health authorities of our decision that allocations should:
  be free of distinctions between what should be spent on powered wheelchairs or vouchers schemes, and that health authorities and provider services should consult with service users and take a flexible approach to ensuring this money meets local needs and priorities in wheelchair services, and
  that all services should continue to operate a voucher scheme which offers users a choice in having a wheelchair which meets their needs.

  Bovine Materials
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the Committee on Dental Surgical Materials required that no materials containing United Kingdom bovine material be used. [111895]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: The Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials (CDSM) did not impose a ban on the use of bovine materials in the production of surgical materials. Licensable dental and surgical materials were subject to the guidelines on the sourcing and processing of bovine materials for use in medicinal products that were issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines as a precautionary measure in March 1989. The effect of the guidelines was to require all United Kingdom licence holders to source bovine material from outside the UK. Existing supplies of dental or surgical products that used UK sourced bovine materials were not withdrawn and it is therefore not possible to confirm when those products ceased to be used.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department made of the risk of transmission of BSE from the use of bovine material in(a) surgical catgut and (b) cosmetic products in deciding whether or not to prohibit the use of such material. [111896]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 March 2000]: The use of bovine material in the production of surgical catgut was considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials (CDSM) and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy working party, set up to advise the CSM and CDSM on the implications of BSE for licensable products in the light of the Southwood Report conclusion that any potential risk of transmission of transferable spongiform encephalopathies associated with medicinal products was remote. They advised that, as a precautionary measure, surgical catgut should be subject to the CSM guidelines issued in March 1989 on the sourcing and processing of bovine material for use in medicinal products. The effect of the guidelines was to require all United Kingdom licence holders to source bovine material from outside the UK.

  Cosmetic products are controlled by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, which implement in the UK the European Union Cosmetics Directive (76/768/EEC). The Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for these Regulations.

  No independent risk assessments were carried out on use of bovine material in cosmetics prior to the opinion of the EU Scientific Committee on Cosmetology (SCC) given in 1996. However, in 1990 the Department of Trade and Industry considered that, although risks were likely to be very low, it would be prudent to take similar action to that taken in the food area on use of UK sourced bovine material. In 1992 guidance was issued by the UK trade associations on the use of bovine and ovine extracts, based primarily on sourcing material from outside the UK or with extracts that conformed with World Health Organisation advice on infectivity.

  The National CJD Surveillance Unit monitors the incidence of CJD and undertakes a detailed examination of cases of variant CJD (vCJD) for any evidence of

  33W
  common risk factors. Investigation of the cases to date has found no evidence of an association with the use of surgical catgut or cosmetic products.

  Vaccines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many yellow card reports have been received by the Medicines Control Agency of suspected adverse reactions to each routine vaccine in each year since 1990. [122910]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The yellow card reports to the Medicines Control Agency of suspected adverse reactions to a routine vaccine are

  Number of reports by year

  Vaccine

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Measles

  504

  249

  183

  131

  1,289

  245

  148

  214

  155

  96

  52

  Rubella

  504

  255

  475

  140

  1,291

  248

  156

  216

  160

  237

  52

  Mumps

  493

  247

  183

  131

  140

  133

  142

  211

  155

  96

  52

  Diphtheria

  311

  312

  357

  487

  453

  417

  545

  431

  500

  699

  148

  Tetanus

  522

  434

  475

  564

  567

  465

  595

  475

  545

  733

  117

  Whooping cough

  246

  199

  231

  343

  301

  209

  298

  250

  237

  595

  75

  Polio

  13

  43

  100

  124

  99

  83

  91

  92

  131

  111

  45

  BCG

  246

  27

  30

  33

  29

  63

  91

  40

  38

  47

  3

  Haemophilus influenzae type B

  0

  0

  543

  1,132

  293

  125

  217

  226

  187

  339

  72

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if vaccines are produced using human serum for individuals who would suffer an allergic reaction to the presence of bovine material in the vaccine. [124087]

  Yvette Cooper
  No. No bovine material is used as an ingredient in vaccines. Where bovine material is used in manufacture, purification processes are designed to remove material from the finished product.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 424W, on human vaccines, what was the first date of the use of bovine material in the early stages of the manufacture of vaccines. [124372]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: Vaccines were in use many years before there were controls on safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products as introduced by the Medicines Act 1968 and have traditionally used bovine materials in their production since the 19th century.

  Since 1968 there have been increasing controls on the manufacture of medicines, including vaccines, such that today we require manufacturers to supply very detailed information about materials and processes used in manufacture and we have a well-developed system of routine inspection against those standards.

  As a result it is not possible to specify the first date of the use of bovine material in the early stages of vaccine manufacture.

  Donaldson Report
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the Donaldson report on amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; and if he will make a statement. [124083]
  34W
  presented in the table. A report of a particular suspected reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine; other factors may have contributed.

  Because multiple antigens can be included within a single vaccine, such as the combined diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough vaccine, single reports may be listed more than once, against each different antigen involved. Children often receive more than one vaccine at a time and therefore a single report can be linked with all of those vaccines and similarly appear more than once in the list.

  Over 150 million doses of vaccines have been distributed in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years.

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group on Therapeutic Cloning has completed its work on the potential benefits, risks and the ethical issues raised by developments in stem cell research and cell nuclear replacement. The report is expected to be considered by Ministers shortly.

  Pain Management
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that a full cost-benefit analysis, including financial savings accruing to all Government Departments is available to support Department of Health decisions about guidance on investment in pain management; [124327]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the budgetary benefits accruing to other Departments from NHS investment in pain management programmes. [124360]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department recognises the importance of improving pain services as highlighted by the recent Clinical Standards Advisory Group report. We have supported a number of studies on pain, particularly low back pain—a major cause of morbidity and absence from work. While we have not commissioned a specific analysis of the benefits accruing to other Government Departments from National Health Service investment in pain management, we would, where appropriate, make all studies commissioned by the Department available to other Government Departments to support their policies.

  Disease Cases
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) measles, (b) mumps, (c) rubella, (d) diphtheria, (e) tetanus, (f) whooping cough and (g) polio there were in each of the last 10 years. [124211]
  35W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: The data in the table, which is for England and Wales, have been provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. For measles, mumps and rubella, data are collected as both notifications of disease and as laboratory-confirmed cases. Laboratory-confirmed cases give a more reliable guide to the true incidence of a disease, and in recent years a low proportion of suspected cases of measles, mumps and rubella have been confirmed as true cases.

  Year

  Measles notified

  Measles tested

  Measles confirmed

  Mumps notified

  Mumps tested

  Mumps confirmed

  1989

  26,222

  n/a

  100

  20,713

  n/a

  265

  1990

  13,302

  n/a

  78

  4,277

  n/a

  94

  1991

  9,680

  n/a

  49

  2,922

  n/a

  52

  1992

  10,268

  n/a

  106

  2,412

  n/a

  49

  1993

  9,611

  n/a

  96

  2,153

  n/a

  34

  1994

  16,374

  n/a

  1406

  2,494

  n/a

  148

  1995

  7,445

  4,622

  160

  1,933

  962

  168

  1996

  5,613

  3,320

  1115

  1,747

  966

  194

  1997

  3,962

  2,596

  1199

  1,914

  1,102

  1181

  1998

  3,728

  2,309

  157

  1,587

  1,000

  1119

  1999

  2,438

  1,412

  1101

  1,691

  1,131

  1335

  Year

  Rubella notified

  Rubella tested

  Rubella confirmed

  Diphtheria

  Tetanus

  Whooping cough

  Poliomyelitis

  1989

  24,570

  n/a

  760

  6

  10

  11,646

  2

  1990

  11,491

  n/a

  705

  4

  11

  15,286

  4

  1991

  7,174

  n/a

  249

  1

  11

  5,201

  2

  1992

  6,212

  n/a

  197

  3

  10

  2,309

  5

  1993

  9,724

  n/a

  1,489

  5

  11

  4,091

  4

  1994

  6,326

  n/a

  309

  4

  3

  3,964

  2

  1995

  6,196

  2,847

  971

  1

  6

  1,869

  2

  1996

  9,081

  4,217

  2,776

  3

  6

  2,387

  1

  1997

  3,260

  2,032

  99

  5

  6

  2,989

  2

  1998

  3,208

  2,207

  1118

  3

  9

  1,577

  1

  1999

  1,954

  1,285

  1181

  0

  3

  1,139

  0

  1Includes cases confirmed by salivary antibody testing in addition to those confirmed by blood testing

  Note:

  The 1999 data are provisional

  Lung Cancer (Radon)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent evidence on the correlation between rates of lung cancer and long-term exposure to radon gas. [126042]

  Yvette Cooper
  We obtain advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on matters of radiological protection. NRPB reviewed the evidence on the risks of exposure to radon in the 1993 "Board Statement on Diagnostic Medical Exposures to Ionising Radiation During Pregnancy and Estimates of Late Radiation Risks to the UK Population" (Documents of the NRPB Vol 4, No 4). Copies are available in the Library.

  The NRPB's Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation has recently started a new review which will be completed in about two years. Although some new evidence, including a case control study in South-West England—"Risk of lung cancer associated with residential radon exposure in
  36W
  Data prior to 1995 on how many notifications of measles, mumps and rubella were tested and confirmed are incomplete and are incomparable with that for 1995 onwards from which date more accessible salivary antibody testing was introduced. Prior to 1995 confirmation required a blood test; these data are not collated but it was likely to be few. The number of cases of pertussis (whooping cough) is based on notifications; only hospitalised cases are tested and the test is only positive in severe disease and very early in infection. The data for diphtheria are for laboratory-confirmed toxigenic diphtheria isolates. The figures for tetanus and polio are for cases ascertained by all methods.

  South West England: a case-control study" S.C. Darby et al British Journal of Cancer (1998), 78(3), 394–408 (copies are available in the Library)—has become available in the interim, the NRPB advise it is unlikely to alter the broad assessment of risk which is that living for a lifetime in a house at the United Kingdom action level for radon (200 Bequerels per cubic metre of air) carries a 3–5 per cent. risk of lung cancer.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of HIV infection in 1995 was spread through(a) homosexual contact, (b) heterosexual contact, (c) drug use and (d) other specified means; and what are the most recent figures for transmission in these categories. [126830]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table provides the information requested, with the proportions expressed as percentages.
  37W

  1995

  19991

  Probable route of HIV infection

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  (a) Homosexual contact

  1,458

  56

  1,198

  42

  (b) Heterosexual contact

  844

  32

  1,277

  45

  (c) Injecting drug use

  180

  7

  91

  3

  (d) Other specified means

  79

  3

  57

  2

  Undetermined2

  55

  2

  224

  8

  1Data to end March 2000; proportions may change over time as more information is obtained.

  2Includes mother to child and blood/tissue transfer or blood factor.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on(a) drugs, (b) care, (c) other treatment and (d) research in relation to AIDS in (i) 1985, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1999. [126828]

  Yvette Cooper
  Spending on HIV/AIDS research in each of the three years is given in the table (in £ millions). Information is not available for the other categories in the form requested. The table shows allocations for 1985–86 and 1990–91 for HIV/AIDS treatment and care made to the National Health Service (which includes drug costs), support to local authorities through the AIDS Support Grant (which will include a contribution towards community-based support) and grants made to voluntary organisations for support and counselling. Actual spend is shown for these budgets for 1999–2000.

  Year

  NHS

  Local authority

  Voluntary sector

  Research

  1985–86

  0

  0

  0.01

  0.667

  1990–91

  70.1

  7

  1.6

  18.4

  1999–2000

  162.9

  15.5

  1.6

  120.4

  1This is now the outturn figure rather than an estimate.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many of those with(a) AIDS and (b) HIV come from broken families. [126800]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with AIDS and HIV there were in the UK in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) 1999. [126748]

  Yvette Cooper
  The numbers of people alive with diagnosed HIV or AIDS at the end of 1985 and 1990 are estimated to have been about 4,500 and 14,000, respectively. Data are not yet available to answer this question for 1999, but for 1998 the estimated number is 20,000.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of running drug dependency units and treatments for drug addicts broken down between(a) in-patient and (b) out-patient care, separately identifying the costs for (i) methadone prescribing and (ii) prevention schemes in (1) 1970, (2) 1980, (3) 1990 and (4) 1999. [126747]

  Yvette Cooper
  The requested information is not collected centrally. Data are available for methadone used in the treatment of substance dependence, covering prescriptions dispensed in the community only. The table shows the number of prescriptions, the actual net ingredient cost, and the net ingredient cost at 1999 prices 38W
  for the period 1980 to 1998, and the first nine months of 1999. Data before 1980 are not available and full data for 1999 are not yet available.

  The regional drug misuse databases are the main source of information on persons presenting to drug treatment services with a drug misuse problem. Copies of the six-monthly statistical bulletin are available in the statistics resource unit of the Library.

  Number and net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed in the community for methadone hydrochloride used in substance dependence, 1980–1998, and 1999 (January to September), England

  Prescriptions (Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Net ingredient cost at 1999 prices (£000)

  1980

  17.3

  13.2

  31.7

  1981

  25.9

  28.5

  62.5

  1982

  24.6

  23.3

  47.8

  1983

  35.4

  40.7

  79.8

  1984

  38.5

  50.5

  94.0

  1985

  65.3

  117.7

  208.3

  1986

  112.0

  192.5

  330.4

  1987

  171.7

  363.0

  591.3

  1988

  196.5

  337.3

  514.6

  1989

  249.8

  471.1

  670.7

  1990

  341.2

  800.7

  1,057.3

  1991

  403.3

  1,912.3

  2,377.6

  1992

  495.0

  2,659.3

  3,200.5

  1993

  598.2

  3,626.2

  4,251.0

  1994

  682.4

  4,444.7

  5,137.0

  1995

  787.0

  5,328.0

  5,984.9

  1996

  891.0

  6,117.8

  6,657.7

  1997

  981.7

  6,852.3

  7,254.6

  1998

  1,022.8

  7,067.7

  7,244.4

  19991

  1,081.7

  7,360.1

  7,360.1

  1January to September

  Notes:

  1. The methadone hydrochloride drugs used in substance dependence are shown in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.10, "Drugs used in substance dependence".

  2. The data up to 1990 are not strictly consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1980–90 are based on fees and on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures for 1991 onwards are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  3. The net ingredient cost (NIC) is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  4. Figures at 1999 prices are calculated using the GDP Deflator.

  Genito-Urinary Services
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people visited a genito-urinary clinic in
  39W
  (a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1999; and what was the cost of drugs prescribed to deal with sexually transmitted diseases in each of these years. [126798]

  Yvette Cooper
  The available information is as follows.

  Diagnoses1 of sexually transmitted diseases in genito-urinary medicine clinics in England

  Year

  Number of diagnoses

  1970

  251,256

  1980

  288,315

  1990

  308,211

  19982

  507,655

  1Provide an indication of patient numbers but individuals may have more than one diagnosis

  2Data for 1999 are not available yet

  Information on overall drugs expenditure to treat sexually transmitted diseases is not available.

  Sterilisation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) sterilisations and (b) reversals of sterilisation were carried out by the NHS in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1999; how many were requested as a result of people getting married or acquiring new partners; and what the total cost to the NHS was in each of those years. [126838]

  Yvette Cooper
  The following table shows Hospital In-Patient figures for 1980, 1990–91 and 1998–99. Data are not available for 1970 and are not collected on reasons why procedures were performed.

  Information is also not available on the total costs to the NHS.

  Procedure

  19801

  1990–91

  1998–99

  Female sterilisation

  16,954

  44,904

  48,194

  Female sterilisation reversal

  6,831

  1,556

  699

  Male sterilisation

  651

  36,670

  35,609

  Male sterilisation reversal

  652

  1,745

  896

  11980 data were collected via the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry which was based on a one in 10 sample of discharges and deaths from non-Psychiatric and non-Maternity NHS Hospitals in England

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip operations, (b) knee replacements, (c) hernia operations and (d) cataract operations were carried out at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in the last available year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [126590]

  Yvette Cooper
  The table shows the information requested for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000.

  Number of operations

  Hip operations

  80

  Knee replacements

  5

  Hernia operations

  717

  Cataract operations

  1,546

  Action is being taken specifically on both reducing waiting times for patients needing orthopaedic procedures
  40W
  and on improving services to them. We are also improving access to cataract services. In doing so, it will improve the volume of surgery and reduce waiting lists. A capital modernisation fund of £20 million over two years from 2000–01 will allow local services to modernise.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital have benefited from the two week wait for treatment for cancer; and if he will make a statement. [126591]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service White Paper sets a cancer standard of two weeks from general practitioner referral to first outpatient appointment. This arrangement has been in place since April 1999 for breast cancer and a rolling programme is in place to achieve the same standard of care for all cancers during 2000.

  The table shows the number of women seen at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust within two weeks of urgent referral for breast cancer since the standard was introduced.

  Waiting times for breast cancer treatment

  Q1 April to June 1999

  Q2 July to September 1999

  Q3 October to December 1999

  Q4 January to March 2000

  Urgent referrals received within 24 hours:

  Seen within 14 days

  1

  13

  28

  30

  Not seen within 14 days

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Urgent referrals not received within 24 hours:

  Seen within 14 days

  14

  11

  0

  3

  Not seen within 14 days

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Fluoride
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to monitor the levels of fluoride added to toothpaste, mouthwashes and dental floss by manufacturers of dental products; and if he will make a statement; [127234]

  (2) what powers are available to him to require manufacturers to include the fluoride contents of (a) toothpaste, (b) mouth washes and (c) dental floss on product labels. [127233]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 controls the safety of cosmetic products in the United Kingdom. Toothpaste and mouthwashes can be classified as oral hygiene products and are controlled under these regulations. Oral hygiene products containing fluoride can contain a maximum of 0.15 per cent. The product must also be marked "contains…fluoride". Regulations require all cosmetic products to be marked with a list of ingredients. Ingredients in concentrations of less than 1 per cent. may be listed in any order after those in concentrations of more than 1 per cent.

  Some toothpaste and mouthwashes containing fluoride are classified as medicinal products if claims are made for the products in accordance with the definition in section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 and the relevant definition in Directive 65/65/EEC. Manufacturers of licensed medicines have a statutory obligation to list all the product's ingredients on the label and patient information

  41W
  leaflet. Active ingredients (those with therapeutic effect), including fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwashes, must be expressed in terms of their concentration.

  The General Product Safety Regulations 1994 apply to dental floss. Under these Regulations manufacturers must provide relevant information to enable consumers to use the product safely and to warn about hazards that are not immediately obvious.

  There is no evidence that these arrangements are causing public concern and we have no plans for any further monitoring of levels of fluoride added to toothpaste, mouthwashes or dental floss.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children have received the BCG immunisation in(a) London, (b) Brent and Harrow Health Authority area and (c) England and Wales; and what target the Government have set for such immunisation. [127348]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information available about the number of children who have been immunised with BCG vaccine is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England 1998–99". Copies of the bulletin are in the Library and it can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/ab9928.htm. Because the immunisation programme is two-pronged, some are given the vaccine shortly after birth neo-natal and others at 10–14 years as long as they are tuberculin skin test negative, reliable estimates of coverage are not readily available. As a result targets are not set for BCG immunisation.

  Our BCG policy is that it should be offered first and foremost to all those considered to be at a higher risk of exposure to tuberculosis such as certain neo-nates and those whose occupation may put them at increased risk (eg. health service and veterinary staff). In addition the policy includes those classed at "normal" risk such as school children between the age of 10 and 14 years.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children have been immunised against measles, mumps and rubella in(a) London, (b) Brent and Harrow Health Authority area and (c) England and Wales; and what target the Government have set for such immunisation. [127349]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information available about the percentage of children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella nationally and by health authority is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1998–99", copies of which are available in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb9928.htm. The target set for immunisation coverage is 95 per cent. for all vaccines by age two.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for publication and implementation of the Government's national strategy on alcohol misuse. [127412]

  Yvette Cooper
  We plan to publish a consultation paper later this year, which will allow a period for comment, prior to the publication of the strategy.

  Huntington's Disease
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he is undertaking to recategorise Huntington's disease; and if he will make a statement; [127410]

  (2) what representations he has received (a) requesting that the present categorisation of Huntington's disease be reassessed and (b) opposing any recategorisation; [127409]

  (3) when Huntington's disease was declassified as a mental condition. [127411]

  Mr. Denham
  Huntington's disease is regarded as a neurological condition, although in its end stages it does lead to dementia. Patients need to receive care appropriate to the stage of the disease they have reached, and this may include management by nursing staff who have experience of treating patients with challenging behaviour.

  There are no plans to recategorise Huntington's disease at present, and no representations have been received by the Department asking for recategorisation.

  CFS/ME Working Group
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work carried out to date by the CFS/ME Working Group. [127701]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Medical Officer's Working Group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has just completed a year-long scoping exercise, which included a children's sounding board event held in October last year and an adult sounding board event held on 7 June 2000. These events were designed to gather patients' views of service. The Group will now begin to move into the second phase of work which will include a consensus-building exercise, to assist with the development of clinical guidance as well as the drafting of the final report.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the final report of the CFS/ME Working Group. [127702]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Medical Officer expects to receive and consider the final report from his working group on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in 2001.

  Cancer Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the national standards for access to cancer care services; and if he will make a statement. [127656]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are determined to improve access to cancer care services and have set the standard that, by the end of the year 2000, patients referred urgently by their general practitioners will be seen by a specialist within 14 days. This standard has been in place for breast cancer since April 1999 and in the first year, 86,000 patients have benefited. We are rolling out this high standard of care for all other cancers so that by December 2000 all suspected cancer referred urgently for investigation will be seen by a specialist within two weeks.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received with regard to Government policies which affect general practitioners in the NHS. [127717]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers and officials regularly receive representations on a wide range of National Health Service matters, including those affecting general practitioners.

  We have, in addition, just undertaken the most comprehensive and ambitious consultation exercise in the history of the NHS in England. This has given every member of the general public and all NHS staff an opportunity to have their say on what they think would make the NHS better. Some of the responses have commented on or made suggestions about the role of general practitioners.

  Lindane
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the incidence of breast cancer associated with the use of Lindane. [127815]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has received a number of representations from hon. Members which have been noted. The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment reviewed all the available published literature and recent research on the association between exposure to Lindane and breast cancer in 1999. The Committee concluded that Overall the available data do not suggest that environmental exposure to Lindane is a cause for concern as a risk factor for human breast cancer.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) recent research and (b) evaluation of research his Department has undertaken into the possible health risks associated with the use of Lindane. [127818]

  Yvette Cooper
  None.

  The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment reviewed all the available published literature and recent research on the association between environmental exposure to Lindane and breast cancer in 1999. The Committee concluded that
  Overall the available data do not suggest that environmental exposure to Lindane is a cause for concern as a risk factor for human breast cancer.

  Continence Services
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures he has set in place to monitor whether targets for the implementation of the new guidelines for NHS continence services have been met; [127966]

  (2) what procedures and funding he has set in place for the NHS at the local level to provide support for national continence awareness campaigns. [127964]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department issued "Good Practice guidance for continence services" in April. This guidance suggests that continence awareness activities should be initiated locally as part of the responsibilities of local 44W
  integrated continence services. The Department has no plans to provide further support for national continence awareness campaigns.

  The guidance also includes appropriate references to the National Health Service performance assessment framework, which is used by the NHS in its planning and monitoring of the delivery of services. The Department has no plans to develop separate procedures to monitor the implementation of the guidance on continence services.

  Antidepressants
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue a warning to doctors about the danger of suicidality in certain patients through the prescribing of Prozac and Sertraline; and if he will make a statement. [127960]

  Ms Stuart
  It is well known that suicidal ideation is associated with depression. Features of depression, including suicidal behaviour, can worsen after introduction of any antidepressant prior to its beneficial effects being apparent. The British National Formulary, issued to all general practitioners, pharmacists and other health professionals, advises that patients treated for depression should be assessed frequently for suicidal tendencies. The summaries of Product Characteristics (SPCs) for Prozac (fluoxetine) and Lustral (sertraline), in common with those for other antidepressants in the class, warn that the possibility of a suicide attempt may persist until significant remission of depression occurs and that patients should be closely supervised in the early stages of treatment.

  Child Deaths
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children aged under 16 have died non-accidental deaths while receiving treatment from a paediatric toxicologist in each of the last five years. [128047]

  (2) how many children aged under 16 have died non-accidental deaths in each of the last five years while receiving treatment from (a) general practitioners and (b) paediatricians. [128048]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Surgical Instruments
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS operations in England have been cancelled in the last 12 months for which records are available due to delays in procuring surgical instruments; and if he will make a statement. [128021]

  Mr. Denham
  Quarterly reports of figures for all cancelled operations in England, which arise on the day a patient was due to come into hospital, or after they have been admitted, are available in the Library. We do not collect data on the reasons for the cancellation of operations but we have no information to suggest that delays in the procurement of surgical instruments have caused cancellations.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that older people
  45W
  living in residential homes have sufficient opportunities for leisure and recreational activities; and if he will make a statement. [128144]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Care Standards Bill makes provision for a new independent regulator for care homes, as well as a range of other care services. The National Care Standards Commission will register and inspect care homes against national minimum standards. Statements of these standards will be developed which will be based upon the regulations made under clause 21 of the Bill. We intend to publish the finalised standards for care homes before the end of the summer, and we will be aiming to ensure that residents in care homes have their social, cultural, religious and recreational needs satisfied.

  PFI Hospitals
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average period is between completion of the Full Business Case and signing of the Final Contract for PFI hospitals; and what delays have been experienced in the delivery of services under those contracts. [128102]

  Mr. Denham
  The length of time between the approval of the full business case and signing of the final contract for the major private finance initiative hospital schemes (capital value greater than £25 million) which have reached this stage is shown in the table. All these schemes are in the construction phase, for which they are either on or ahead of schedule, except Carlisle, which became operational in April 2000, 34 days ahead of schedule.

  Period between FBC approval and contract signature

  Scheme

  Less than 7 days

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  North Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Leeds Community and Mental Health

  Services NHS Trust

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  Less than one month

  South Durham Healthcare NHS Trust

  Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Greater than one month

  52 days

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  65 days

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  640 days

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to monitor the(a) service provided by hospitals delivered under the Private Finance Initiative and (b) performance of PFI contracts for hospitals. [128100]

  Mr. Denham
  National Health Service guidance requires NHS trusts to establish arrangements to monitor the implementation and performance of the private finance initiative contract in both the period up to 46W
  completion and commissioning of the new facility and during the operational phase of the contract during which services are provided to the NHS trust.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what penalty clauses there are in the standard PFI contract for hospitals; and how often these have been invoked. [128101]

  Mr. Denham
  The payment mechanism in a private finance initiative contract, which includes mechanisms for the withholding or deduction of payments to private sector partners for their failure to perform to time or to standard, is negotiated individually for each scheme within guidelines set out by the National Health Service Executive.

  There has only been one instance to date of a penalty clause being invoked at the new major PFI hospital schemes.

  NHS Consultation Process
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in the recent NHS consultation process(a) how many leaflets were issued, (b) how many leaflets were returned by 5 June, (c) how the leaflets were distributed and (d) what conclusions he has drawn; and if he will make a statement. [127901]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]: Over 12 million leaflets were produced and made available to the public and National Health Service staff through hospitals, general practitioners, surgeries, supermarkets and other retail outlets asking for an outline of the top three things that would make the NHS better.

  The Department has received 219,943 responses. The top three priorities for the public were more capacity (doctors, nurses and pay), less waiting and doing things differently.

  Health Services (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) intensive care, (b) acute, (c) recuperative, and (d) intermediate beds are maintained by Harrogate District Hospital. [128085]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of intensive care beds for Harrogate Health Care National Health Service Trust as at 15 January 2000 was three intensive care and five high dependency beds in a combined unit.

  The average daily number of available acute beds during 1998–99 was 310. Data on recuperative and intermediate beds are not collected as a separate ward classification.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nursing and (b) residential beds are paid for by North Yorkshire Health Authority. [128084]

  Mr. Hutton
  Central information on bed numbers is only available on a National Health Service trust basis. The total number of available beds in trusts bounded by the North Yorkshire Health Authority is 2,641. General and acute beds make up 1,937 of this total. Data on nursing beds are not collected as a separate ward classification.

  Data on residential beds are not available centrally.
  47W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultation has taken place on reorganisation of the health services in North Yorkshire. [128079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The North Yorkshire Health Authority has recently consulted on proposals by York Health Services National Health Service Trust for the development of services for older people with mental health problems in Easingwold. The consultation ended in January 2000.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for(a) junior doctors, (b) consultants, (c) nurses, and (d) locum staff there are at Harrogate District Hospital. [128086]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is given in the table.

  Staffing description

  Whole-time equivalents

  Junior Doctors

  12.0

  Consultants

  11.0

  Nurses

  218

  1Locum staff and agency staff are currently employed by the trust to cover these posts. There is also one locum employed covering annual leave and one locum covering sickness.

  2Where nursing vacancies exist, bank and agency staff are used.

  Source:

  Harrogate Health Care National Health Service Trust

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold a public consultation on the future configuration of health services in North Yorkshire. [128077]

  Mr. Hutton
  The development of primary care trusts requires all local health communities to consider the implications for the configuration of National Health Service organisations. The North Yorkshire health authority has been working with a wide range of local stakeholders, including National Health Service trusts, primary care groups and local authorities, on future organisational configuration issues. Local Members of Parliament have been kept informed about these discussions.

  Should these discussions result in formal proposals for the reconfiguration of National Health Service trusts, these would be subject to a full public consultation.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department has taken to help ensure people in North Yorkshire health authority have access to drugs and other treatment for Alzheimer's disease. [128088]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to have policies in place for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Drugs for Alzheimer's disease will be reviewed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and guidance should be issued to the National Health Service by December 2000.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the(a) accident and emergency, (b) cardiac, (c) orthopaedic and (d) cancer care at the (i) Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and (ii) York and Scarborough NHS Health Trust. [128080]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no formal assessment of these services. Such work would normally be undertaken by the relevant National Health Service trusts and health authorities.
  48W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) junior doctors, (b) consultants, (c) nurses, and (d) locum staff are contracted (i) full-time and (ii) part-time to Harrogate District Hospital. [128087]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is shown in the table.

  Data on hospital and community health services medical and dental staff holding either directly employed or agency locum appointments have not been collected centrally since 1996.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by Nature of Contract, in Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust, as at 30 September 1999

  Whole-tune equivalents

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Consultant1

  Junior doctors

  Total

  780

  40

  50

  Full-time

  470

  40

  50

  Part-time

  280

  2—

  2—

  Bank

  40

  3—

  3—

  1Consultants with maximum part-time contracts are included with full-time staff to reflect their substantially full-time commitment to the NHS

  2Five or less and greater than zero

  3Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  3. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Harrogate District Hospital. [128078]

  Mr. Denham
  Harrogate District Hospital will remain a general hospital serving the local community. Achieving this will require development of clinical partnerships with neighbouring general hospitals, and work to achieve this is under way across North Yorkshire. It has benefited from a major capital development of £37 million. The main phases have been completed and final construction work will be completed in November 2000.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of MRSA have been reported in the past five years in(a) Harrogate District Hospital and (b) North Yorkshire Health Authority; and what measures his Department has taken to eliminate instances of MRSA. [128089]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are not held centrally. Tackling hospital acquired infection, including MRSA, has been set as a "must do" for the NHS. We have developed and issued national standards for infection control that places responsibility on chief executives of NHS trusts to deliver locally. Progress on compliance with these standards will be independently reviewed and monitored by both the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 119W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128253]

  May 1997–April 1998

  Companies seconded from:

  Civil service grade

  Business unit seconded to:

  Summary of work undertaken

  Rawlings Ophthalmic Opticians

  IP4

  Health Services Directorate

  Developing policy on general ophthalmic services

  Private Finance Panel Executive (2)

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Advising NHS trusts on legal and financial aspects of PFI contracts

  Tarmac Plc

  SCS

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Nabarro Nathanson

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Pinsent Curtis

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  May 1998–April 1999

  Companies seconded from:

  Civil service grade

  Section seconded to:

  Summary of work undertaken

  Hempsons

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Advising NHS trusts on legal and financial aspects of PFI contracts

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Ward Hadaway

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Beachcroft Stanleys

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Dickinson Dees

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Lloyds Bank

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  May 1999–April 2000

  Companies seconded from:

  Civil service grade

  Business unit seconded to:

  Summary of work undertaken

  British Airways

  SCS

  Corporate Management Directorate

  Developing the Department's capacity to change in order to deliver Minister's priorities.

  Addleshaw Booth & Co.

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Advising NHS trusts on legal and financial aspects of PFI contracts

  Berwin Leighton

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Taylor Woodrow

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Deloitte & Touche

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  Herbert Smith

  IP4

  Finance and Performance Directorate

  GM Feed
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to fund research into the health effects of GM animal feeds. [127052]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: I am informed by the Food Standards Agency that all genetically modified animal feed has been rigorously assessed by United Kingdom and European Union experts for possible effects on the health of consumers of the resulting animal products. Research to date has concentrated on the effects of processing on animal feed materials and the ability of DNA to survive processing and passage through an animal's gut. No incidental ill-effects have been detected in countries where GM crops have been grown and they and their by-products have been fed to animals for a number of years.
  50W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: Secondments and attachments are part of the interchange initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Before an interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interest arises.

  Details of secondments from the private sector commencing in the years shown are set out in the tables.

  The agency is funding a study to investigate whether, and under what circumstances, antibiotic resistance marker genes from GM feed materials might transfer into the genomes of gut bacteria in the buccal cavities and gastro-intestinal tracts of ruminant animals.

  Mileage Allowances
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to increase the Whitley Council mileage allowance for NHS staff using their own transport. [128282]

  Mr. Denham
  Mileage and travelling entitlements for National Health Service staff on national contracts are determined by an agreement of the General Whitley Council. A working group of the Council which includes representatives from trade unions and employers is reviewing existing provisions with the aim of
  51W
  recommending new arrangements which are fair to staff, meet service needs and reflect our wider environmental policies. We are aiming to complete these negotiations shortly.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the link between personal, social and health education and targets to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. [126110]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 27 June 2000, Official Report, columns 473–74W.

DEFENCE

  Procurement
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Government's defence procurement policies. [127269]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government's procurement policy is based on delivering value for money through competition and prime contracting. Our Smart Procurement reforms focus on improving procurement effectiveness by introducing commercial best practice and working more closely with all our suppliers, at both project and policy level.

  The benefits of smart procurement are beginning to work through, and I am confident that this forward-looking approach will lack the legacy of cost overruns and slippage that have bedevilled equipment procurement in the past.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss defence procurement; and if he will make a statement. [127279]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had frequent meetings with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury where we have discussed a wide range of issues, including defence procurement.

  UN Operations
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed forces personnel are allocated to UN operations; and in how many places. [127270]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK currently contributes 356 military personnel to six UN-commanded operations. These operations are in Cyprus, Georgia, Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Democratic Republic of Congo and on the Iraq/Kuwait border. Some 6,000 further troops are deployed with NATO on UN mandated operations mostly in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. Fifty-six MOD police personnel are deployed with UNMIK in Kosovo.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with what weaponry the Eurofighter will be armed when it first enters service with the RAF. [127271]
  52W
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with what weaponry the Eurofighter will be armed when it first enters squadron service with the RAF. [127280]

  Mr. Spellar
  Eurofighter will be armed with the Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) and the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) when it first enters service.

  SA80
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the SA80 modification programme. [127272]

  Mr. Hoon
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced on Friday 23 June that we intend to award a contract to Heckler and Koch, a subsidiary of Royal Ordnance, to modify some 200,000 SA80 weapons, including both the Individual Weapon and the Light Support Weapon. The SA80 is a generally effective weapon system. But we now know that it can be improved. Our Service men and women deserve a reliable weapon in which they have confidence. The modification programme will make the SA80 among the best in the world. And it demonstrates our willingness to take quick and decisive procurement action when required.

  Iraq
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what operations Her Majesty's armed forces have been engaged in over Iraq in the last month; and if he will make a statement. [127273]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the month to 30 June, coalition aircraft have continued to patrol the no-fly zones over Iraq in support of UN Security Council Resolution 688, which demanded an immediate end to Saddam' s brutal repression of his people. During that time, the Iraqi air defence system attacked or threatened coalition aircraft carrying out their legitimate duties on 18 occasions. Acting entirely in self-defence, RAF aircraft took part in eight operations against those military facilities threatening or attacking our aircraft.

  Computer Failures
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made concerning the level of computer failures in his Department, its agencies and the armed forces. [127275]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence does not keep central records of non-critical computer systems as it would be uneconomic to do so. However, no operation has been curtailed due to a computer system failure in the last year.

  The Ministry of Defence regularly assesses the criticality of all its computer systems. Based on these assessments there are contingency plans in place to ensure vital functions are provided with an alternate means of processing the data in the event of a computer failure.

  Submarines
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy submarines are operationally available. [127277]
  53W
  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently nine Royal Navy submarines operational or engaged in preparing for service, trials or training.

  Homosexuals (Armed Services)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received calling for improved support for homosexual service men and women; and if he will make a statement. [127278]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary announced our renewed policy on homosexuals in the Armed Forces in January this year. Since then, we have not received any representations for improved support for homosexual servicemen and women. Sexual orientation is now viewed as an entirely private matter. All Service personnel, regardless of their sexual orientation, have full access to the entire range of Service welfare agencies, including confidential helplines.

  European Security and Defence Identity
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with his opposite numbers in EU member states to discuss European security and defence identity issues; and if he will make a statement. [127281]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last discussed European security and defence issues with my EU counterparts at the General Affairs Council on 13 June.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the armed forces of the United Kingdom's continental European allies in the context of the European security and defence identity. [127283]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Kosovo crisis has shown that European nations need to be better able to deploy rapidly and sustain the right mix of armed forces for NATO or EU-led operations.

  To this end, EU member states made a commitment to improving their military capabilities by signing up to a collective target—known as the Headline Goal—at the Helsinki Summit in December 1999. This goal is complementary to NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative.

  In line with the measures endorsed at the recent Feira European Council, we expect EU member states to nominate their voluntary contributions to this goal at the Capabilities Commitment Conference later this year.

  Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by each of the three armed services in meeting their targets for recruitment among Britain's ethnic minorities. [127284]

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by each of the three armed services in meeting their targets for recruitment among Britain's ethnic minorities. [127293]

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by each of the three armed services in meeting their targets for recruitment among Britain's ethnic minorities. [127257]
  54W
  Mr. Spellar
  In 1990–2000, 1.9 per cent. of the total Armed Forces intake were from the British ethnic minority communities. Single Service achievement levels were:

  Naval Service: 1.7 per cent.

  Army: 2.1 per cent., and

  RAF: 1.5 per cent.

  Although we are disappointed that this is short of our own 3 per cent. tri-Service goal, all three Services have continued to improve on the previous year's performance. The figures are in the right direction. We are committed to meeting these goals and working hard to meet them in the future.

  Ro-ro Vessels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make an announcement on the award of a contract for roll-on, roll-off vessels. [127285]

  Mr. Hoon
  The competition for the Strategic Sealift (RORO) service is very close and more than one bidder has made improved offers which cannot be taken into account under the existing procedures. Moreover, circumstances have changed significantly since the original bids were submitted on 14 January; not least as a consequence of the British Aerospace merger with Marconi Electronic Systems. We have therefore decided that, to ensure the best value for money to the taxpayer, we should conduct a further round of bidding.

  This will allow UK shipyards the opportunity to show that they can be competitive, but we have not changed the specification for the competition. The decision will still be taken on best value for money grounds, and all bidders will be treated fairly under the European public procurement rules which still apply to the competition.

  After consulting the bidders and explaining the reasons for this further round, the Ministry of Defence has invited the four competing consortiums to "Revise and Confirm" their bids by 6 July 2000. It remains the MOD's intention to place a contract later this year.

  Bullying
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress in combating bullying in the Army. [127286]

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to address the issue of bullying in the armed forces. [127276]

  Mr. Spellar
  All three Services have a clear policy, which is promulgated to all personnel, that no form of harassment, victimisation or other unacceptable social conduct will be tolerated and all allegations of ill treatment are thoroughly investigated. It is the duty of all those in a position of responsibility to protect others from physical and mental bullying and to report any incident promptly. Appropriate action is taken against the perpetrators. Potential recruits are made fully aware of this policy. The policy of zero tolerance towards ill treatment was re-emphasised when the new code of social conduct was issued to all Service personnel in January. In the last two years, all three Services have set up Confidential Helplines which can be used by any member of the Armed Forces or their families, if necessary anonymously, who believe they are being ill-treated.

  Missile Defence System
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has made to the USA and NATO on the proposed new missile defence system. [127287]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have a continuing dialogue with the US Administration on their proposed National Missile Defence system. It also continues to be the subject of collective discussion by NATO Allies.

  Defence Medical Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many extra personnel the Government aim to recruit to the Defence Medical Services in the next three years. [127288]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) earlier today,Official Report, column 15.

  Troop Deployments
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Army is(a) committed to (b) preparing for and (c) recovering from military operations. [127289]

  Mr. Spellar
  Some 27 per cent. of the trained Army is committed to Operations. This figure includes units preparing for, deployed on, and recovering from, operations. Of these, 20 per cent. of the trained Army is currently deployed on operations. The total is down from a peak of 47 per cent. committed at the height of the Kosovo campaign in July 1999 and below that inherited from the previous administration.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel are serving overseas. [127290]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 April 2000, 42,710 Armed Forces personnel were serving overseas.

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Army recruitment. [127291]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Army achieved 15,026 soldier enlistments during the last financial year. This was lower than the numbers enlisted in 1998–99 (15,609), but output to the Field Army in 1999–2000, which is the more important figure, was up by over 1,000 on the previous year. This is partly as a result of changes made to the selection criteria for new entrants and other changes introduced in the initial training regime. In respect of Officer recruiting, the numbers entering Sandhurst last year were 646 and output from the College was 534 against targets of 777 and 620 respectively. However, this year, the Army expects that numbers entering Sandhurst will be on target. Also the numbers of inquiries for officer careers are up on previous periods, as is the number of successful candidates at the Regular Commissions Board, which is a precursor to Sandhurst entry. Advertising for Army careers, for both soldier and officer candidates, is being more specifically targeted this year.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value is of the contracts awarded so far for the design of the future generation of aircraft carriers. [127292]

  Mr. Hoon
  Two contracts, each worth up to £30 million, for work to investigate options for the design of the future aircraft carrier have been awarded to BAE Systems and Thomson-CSF Naval Systems.

  Potential Recruits (Fitness)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to help young unemployed people who want to join the armed forces attain the necessary fitness levels. [127294]

  Mr. Spellar
  Fitness levels found in the average young person have been in decline for some time. On the other hand, the fitness standards required of armed forces' recruits by the end of their training have not been reduced. Consequently, in addition to tailored fitness training programmes during recruit training, the Services recognise the need to give guidance to initial applicants, who may include the young unemployed, on the issue of physical fitness to enable them to attain the high level of fitness required to pass recruit training. The Naval Service issues a pre-joining fitness programme booklet to all potential recruits. The length of the programme lasts four weeks for officers and ratings, and eight weeks for Royal Marine other ranks applicants. If an Army recruiter believes that a potential applicant should take action to improve his/her fitness, he/she is given a video and a pamphlet which describe the training that should be undertaken. Similarly, all RAF recruits are given a booklet on physical fitness training prior to commencement of Recruit Training.

  Territorial Army (Balkans)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the contribution of Territorial Army soldiers serving in the Balkans. [127274]

  Mr. Spellar
  Members of the TA have provided a vital contribution to operations in the Balkans. A total of 3,983 Territorial Army soldiers have been mobilised for duty in the Balkans since December 1995. Their role has been to provide individual reinforcements with a variety of skills to Regular Units on operational tours, and fill a number of staff appointments in the various headquarters in the Balkans.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department plans to spend on operations in Kosovo this year. [127282]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 2000–01 estimate of additional expenditure likely to be incurred on operations in Kosovo is approximately £220 million.

  Fuel Costs
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Royal Navy's budgeted fuel allocation for 2000–01 is; and what the figure was for each of the previous five years. [127996]
  57W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Commander-in-Chief Fleet's total fuel allocation for 2000–01, including fuel for ships, submarines, aircraft, the Royal Marines and domestic purposes, is £57 million.

  The actual spend for the previous five years, again giving a total of all fuel used, was as follows:

  Financial Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  48.5

  1996–97

  44.5

  1997–98

  40

  1998–99

  31.5

  1999–2000

  43

  Year on year variations are largely attributable to fluctuating fuel prices. In 1998–99 prices dropped very steeply, followed by sharp rises since then.

  Flying Hours
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flying hours were flown in(a) Tornado GR 1 or 4, (b) Tornado F3, (c) Jaguar and (d) RAF Harrier aircraft in each of the past five years; and what the planning assumption is for 2000–01. [127999]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Flying hours (Aircraft flying hours)

  Year

  Tornado GR1/4

  Tornado F3

  Jaguar

  RAF Harrier GR7

  1995–96

  34,273

  28,375

  13,065

  15,525

  1996–97

  31,511

  25,634

  11,916

  16,003

  1997–98

  31,275

  27,076

  12,346

  15,307

  1998–99

  28,780

  22,769

  12,417

  15,246

  1999–2000

  24,934

  20,870

  12,388

  13,811

  Tasked hours planned for 2000–01

  Hours

  Tornado GR1/4

  28,970

  Tornado F3

  26,136

  Jaguar

  12,437

  RAF Harrier GR7

  15,378

  Note:

  Figures include OCU, OEU and 1435 Flt

  Western European Union
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the speech of the French Deputy Defence Minister to the Parliamentary Assembly of Western European Union on 8 June as part of his formulation of Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future of this body. [127473]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government will take all relevant information, including the views of the other WEU member countries and associate countries into account in formulating its policy on the future of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union.

  Service Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the review of arrangements 58W
  for compensating service personnel and their dependants, killed or injured while on service announced on 7 December 1997; and when he will publish a consultation document. [107439]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: My right hon. Friend has been considering draft proposals from the Joint Compensation Review. He believes, however, that it will be possible to reach final conclusions about attributable benefits only in the context of proposals about the future of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme as a whole, which will emerge from the parallel Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). That Review is still in progress. My right hon. Friend will therefore make an announcement once he has considered the draft recommendations of the AFPS Review. The announcement will be followed by a period of public consultation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the period between the commencement of the home detention curfew scheme and 31 May(a) the number of prisoners who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the specific offences which they committed, (b) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (c) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (1) breached the conditions of the curfew, (2) disappeared and were recaptured, (3) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large, and (4) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (d) the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (e) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [126536]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: As of 31 May 2000, a total of 21,798 prisoners had been released on Home Detention Curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.

  The original offences committed by prisoners released under the scheme during the period, the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence, the average sentence received and served for those offences, and the average period spent on the scheme in respect of the prisoners convicted of each specific offence are shown in Table 1. The data are taken from the Prison Service's inmate information system based on the data recorded by each prison. The table provides as detailed a breakdown of offences as is possible from central records.

  A total of 764 prisoners released on the scheme during the period breached the conditions of their curfew. A breakdown of this number showing the original offences committed in shown in Table 2.
  59W
  Information on curfewees whose licences are revoked and who disappear before being recaptured is included within the information held on the number of curfewees unlawfully at large at any one time. On 31 May there were 36 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents fewer than four per cent. of the total number of revocations. In the vast majority of cases, when a curfewee's licence is revoked, he or she can expect to be apprehended quickly and returned to custody. While the priority to be given to pursuing individual cases will be an operational matter for local police forces, Home Office Circular 1/1999 made clear that Home Detention Curfew recalls should be regarded as "urgent" cases. In addition, the National Identification Service at New Scotland Yard issues "The Police Gazette" weekly to all police forces, including details of curfewees who are unlawfully at large. When curfewees are apprehended following a period unlawfully at large, they are required to serve the period of time outstanding at the point their licence was revoked.

  Details of the offences originally committed by those 36 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large on 31 May 2000 can be found in Table 3.

  As of 31 May 2000, 1,028 curfewees had their licences revoked, using the powers available to the Secretary of State under Sections 38A(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The reasons for revocation were as follows:
  for breach of the curfew (Section 38A(1)a of the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
  because the curfewee's whereabouts could no longer be electronically monitored (Section 38A(1)b of the Criminal Justice Act 1991);
  because it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm (Section 38A(1)c of the Criminal Justice Act 1991); and
  because the curfewee had committed an offence or breached any requirement of probation supervision (Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991). Curfewees who are charged with new offences may also be recalled on any preceding grounds depending on the circumstances of the case.

  A breakdown of the original offences the 1,028 recalled curfewees committed together with a breakdown of the reasons for recall is at Table 4.

  Table 5 gives a breakdown of all offences committed by prisoners placed on Home Detention Curfew while on the scheme. Where a curfewee has been charged with more than one offence, these have been shown separately.

  Table 6 gives a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners placed on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme which was similar in character to the most serious offence for which they were originally convicted.

  The scheme is designed to ensure a better transition for short-term offenders between custody and the community. Prisoners are only placed on Home Detention Curfew after a careful risk assessment, and the safety of the public is paramount at all times.

  Tables 1–6 have been placed in the Library.

  Communities Act 2000
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those(a) businesses,
  60W
  (b) individuals and (c) organisations he (i) has consulted and (ii) plans to consult over Communities Act 2000/c124/01, of OJ C124, vol. 43, 3 May 2000. [128104]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Prior to the adoption by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 23 March 2000 of the document, "The Prevention and Control of Organised Crime: A European Strategy for the Beginning of the New Millennium", it was cleared by the European Communities Committee of the House of Lords on 14 March and the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons on 15 March. Throughout negotiations on the document, we regularly consulted Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service the National Crime Squad and the Association of Chief Police Officers. There are no plans for further consultations.

  Europol
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy concerning the extension of the(a) competetencies and (b) resources of Europol; and if it is his policy that Europol should have the authority to ask member states to initiate investigations (i) singly and (ii) co-jointly on its behalf. [128107]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The European Council, in its special meeting at Tampere on 15–16 October 1999, invited the Council of the European Union to extend the competence of Europol to money laundering in general, regardless of the type of offence from which the laundered proceeds originate. A draft amendment to the Europol Convention which would give effect to the Tampere proposal is currently under consideration by member states. We support the purposes of the amendment which would enable Europol to provide member states with more effective support in fighting money laundering which is at the heart of much organised crime. We take the view, in negotiating the budget for Europol, that it must demonstrate that it is using its resources efficiently and cost effectively in discharging its mandate. Any proposed increase to Europol's budget is subjected to detailed scrutiny, including by the United Kingdom's representative on the Europol Management Board.

  The European Council at Tampere also attached importance to allowing Europol to ask member states to initiate, conduct or co-ordinate investigations, each involving a single member state, or joint investigation teams involving two or more member states, while respecting national systems of judicial control. A draft recommendation reflecting this Tampere conclusion is also under consideration by the member states. We support the purposes of the recommendation on the basis that any participation by Europol in investigations or joint investigation teams would, as also envisaged at Tampere, be in a support capacity.

  EU Court Judgments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on discussions at EU level concerning the recognition of court judgments passed in one member state being automatically recognised in other member states. [128137]
  61W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Tampere European Council strongly endorsed the concept of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, and asked the Council and Commission to adopt a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition, by the end of this year.

  The possible contents of the programme of measures have been discussed in the European Union's Article 36 Committee and in other European Union working groups in the third pillar, on the basis of the United Kingdom's proposals. The European Commission has also held consultations on enforcement of foreign sentences. The incoming French Presidency is preparing to table a draft of the programme very shortly. A copy of this document will be deposited for Scrutiny. The programme is likely to include mutual recognition of decisions concerning the freezing of assets, arrest for purposes of extradition and execution of fines, imprisonment and other sentences imposed in another member state.

  The Government intend to support further work on this issue, based on the conclusions of the Tampere European Council.

  European Police College
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the planned activities of the European Police College; how many and what types of police it will cater for; and what its overall purpose is. [128109]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to the establishment of a European Police College Network to encourage greater co-ordination and sharing of good practice between European States. We have contributed fully to discussions on the role and organisation of such a network. I refer the hon. Member to the draft Council decision which we have recently submitted for Parliamentary scrutiny. This provides details on the specific functions and responsibilities the Network is proposing to undertake.

  Eurojust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards Eurojust. [128257]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 March 2000,Official Report, columns 682–83W.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the fee was for attendance at the proposed Global Cultural Diversity Congress; and if Ministers were exempted. [128116]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand from the Gurbux Singh Report that various categories of delegate attendance fees were set by Global Cultural Diversity Congress (GCDC) 2000 Ltd. and that the suggested standard delegate fee was £595. All decisions about who to exempt from fees were for GCDC 2000 Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Ministers had planned(a) to attend and (b) to contribute to the Global Cultural Diversity Congress. [128115]
  62W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Invitations to attend and contribute to the congress were a matter for Global Cultural Diversity Congress 2000 Ltd.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was proposing to Chair a Think Tank at the Congress and I had agreed to chair a panel debate.

  Defendants
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of the last 12 months for which information is available, what proportion of persons appearing before(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts had no previous convictions. [128023]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on previous convictions for persons appearing before magistrates courts or the Crown court is not available centrally. However, previous conviction data are available for persons who appeared and were subsequently convicted.

  Based on a sample of over 38,000 persons convicted of a standard list offence during 1998, 40 per cent. of persons convicted at magistrates courts and 32 per cent. of persons convicted at the Crown court had no previous convictions.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the principle of London weighting to Hampshire to help police authorities recruit officers in areas of high property prices. [128160]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Act 1996 provides that the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) shall make recommendations to the Home Secretary on matters including the pay and allowances of police officers, which include London Allowance and London Weighting. The Home Secretary shall take into consideration any such recommendation before making regulations.

  A Working Party of the PNB is meeting on 11 July to discuss the impact on other forces of the increase in London Allowance which will take effect from 1 July.

  Police (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the established strength was of the Colchester Division of the Essex police force; and what was the actual number in post at(a) May 1995, (b) May 1996, (c) May 1997, (d) May 1998, (e) May 1999 and (f) May 2000. [128141]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chief Constable of Essex is only able to provide figures for 1997 onwards and these are set out in the table.

  Colchester division budgeted strength and actual strength 1997–2000

  As at 31 May

  Budgeted strength1

  Actual strength1

  1997

  190

  188.2

  1998

  185

  186.8

  1999

  180

  180.6

  2000

  163

  158

  1Full-time equivalents

  The reduction in the budgeted strength of the Colchester Division since 1997 is a consequence of the

  63W
  force's civilianisation programme, the transfer of some posts from Divisional strength to Headquarters strength, although the officers concerned remained based in Colchester, and the formation on 1 April 2000 of Major Investigation Teams. The changes are intended to make Essex police more efficient, effective, responsive to demands and to enable better targeting of resources on crime reduction.

  The Colchester Division receives additional policing support from centrally provided road policing, dogs section, air support and Crime Division officers. The number of specialist department officers deployed in Colchester will vary according to demands for their services in Colchester and elsewhere in the Essex police.

  Prison Industries
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total(a) expenditure of and (b) income from prison industries involved in commercial contracts was in the last five years. [128300]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 302W.

  It is not possible to break down expenditure between commercial contracts and that used for products for internal consumption.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the contracts held by the Prison Service for commercial work from prison industries; and if he will make a statement. [128299]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has commercial contracts to supply goods and services to the organisations listed. Contracts with commercial companies to supply work for prisoners may be sourced centrally by the Prison Service's Enterprise and Supply Services, but many are entered into locally by individual establishments. Information on contracts for commercial work is not collected centrally and a comprehensive list could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministry of Defence—woodwork and clothing

  Atomic Weapons Establishment—protective clothing

  Komplete Safety—clothing

  Royal Air Force Staff College—laundries

  South West London Community NHS Trust—laundries

  Tower Hamlets Healthcare—laundries

  Rank Holiday Division—laundries

  North Middlesex Hospital—laundries

  Axis—milk supply

  Zenith—milk supply

  Milk Link—milk supply

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency—data transcription

  Graphic Data—photographing data.

  Prison Wages
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level is of prison wages; under what circumstances higher wages can be paid; and if he will make a statement. [128301]
  64W
  Mr. Boateng
  A Prison Service national framework sets the minimum level of pay for employed prisoners at £4.00. The minimum for those in training is set at £2.50. Above the prescribed minimum rates, levels of pay are set at the discretion of the Governor, and will vary depending upon the regime in place, the type of work available and links with other relevant schemes, for example incentives and earned privileges.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average(a) number of remand prisoners and (b) proportion of the prison population consisting of remand prisoners in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [128168]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: The information requested is given in the table. This information (up to 1998) is also published in "Prison Statistics England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Average population of remand prisoners 1989–99

  Year

  Average remand population

  Total average population

  Remands as a percentage of total average population

  1989

  10,499

  48,610

  21.6

  1990

  9,904

  45,636

  21.7

  1991

  10,157

  45,897

  22.1

  1992

  10,090

  45,817

  22.0

  1993

  10,660

  44,566

  23.9

  1994

  12,357

  48,794

  25.3

  1995

  11,375

  51,047

  22.3

  1996

  11,613

  55,281

  21.0

  1997

  12,131

  61,114

  19.8

  1998

  12,567

  65,298

  19.2

  1999

  12,520

  64,771

  19.3

  Prisons (Purposeful Activity)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total amount was of public expenditure on purposeful activity in prison in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [128298]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to isolate accurately and calculate the total cost of the wide range of disparate activities which comprise purposeful activity. Although the level of such activity is comprehensively monitored, many of the costs cannot be meaningfully separated from the overall budget of running an establishment, for example staff costs.

  An indication of the investment in purposeful activity is provided by the following central allocation for specific elements of purposeful activity.

  Expenditure on education1

  £

  1995–96

  36,956,087

  1996–97

  34,507,378

  1997–98

  36,174,320

  1998–99

  39,049,875

  1999–2000

  47,445,945

  1Covers payments to education providers, payments for libraries and for education materials

  65W

  Expenditure on industries and farms1

  £

  1995–96

  24,680,000

  1996–97

  27,080,000

  1997–98

  28,442,000

  1998–99

  28,889,000

  1999–2000

  26,695,000

  1Covers expenditure on raw materials and small tools and maintenance, but not staff costs or overheads

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners committed suicide in 1998; and of these suicides how many were caused by hanging. [128517]

  Mr. Boateng
  There were 83 self-inflicted deaths in prison custody in 1998. Of these, 80 were caused by hanging.

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 on applications, June 1999 to May 2000 by month, nationals of Sierra Leone

  Principal applicants

  Applications

  Decisions

  Total

  Port

  In country

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria.3,4

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria3,5

  June 1999

  95

  40

  55

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  July

  140

  85

  60

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  August

  80

  50

  30

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  September

  130

  60

  65

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  October

  95

  45

  50

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  November

  85

  50

  35

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  December

  100

  75

  30

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  January 2000

  75

  50

  30

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  February

  105

  45

  65

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  March

  105

  40

  60

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  April

  75

  25

  45

  120

  *

  30

  10

  80

  —

  May

  105

  25

  80

  155

  20

  60

  30

  35

  10

  Total to date

  1,190

  585

  605

  275

  25

  90

  40

  115

  10

  1Figures rounded to nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre '96 act asylum backlog.

  4May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  5May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  6Not applicable

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on speed cameras per police force and in total in each of the last 10 years; and what the planned expenditure is in future years for which figures are available. [128388]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of each police force to determine how much to spend on speed cameras and other road safety measures.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of speed cameras with special reference to the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [128394]

  Police Response Times
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if police response times are calculated on the same basis in each police force area in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [122284]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]: No. Each police area has a different method for measuring response times. Details for 1998–99 are contained in the Audit Commission Report "Police and Fire Services Local Authority Performance Indicators 98/99".

  Asylum Seekers (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from Sierra Leone have applied for asylum in the last 12 months; and how many of these applications have been granted. [128738]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government do not expect the use of speed cameras to alter after the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force in England and Wales on 2 October.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many areas the fines from speed cameras are kept by(a) local authorities and (b) police services; and if he will make a statement. [128391]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In December 1998, Her Majesty's Treasury announced that, subject to certain criteria, some fine income might be reinvested in law enforcement activity. With Her Majesty's Treasury agreement, pilot schemes involving the use of speed cameras were launched on 1 April this year. The pilots are taking place in eight police force areas: Cleveland.
  67W
  Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, Strathclyde and Thames Valley.

  Local partnerships have been formed to run each of the pilots. These consist of the police, local authorities and the courts. Fine revenue from fixed penalties is being invested into the purchase of additional speed cameras and/or the increased use of existing cameras all to an agreed programme. Surplus fine income will be returned to Her Majesty's Treasury. The success of the pilots will be judged on their road safety benefits, particularly their ability to reduce deaths and injuries.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost was of a new speed camera in the last 12 months. [128390]

  Average level of fines given at all courts by type of offence, England and Wales, 1994–98

  £

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Type of offence

  Average fine

  Average fine where fine only penalty

  Average fine

  Average fine where fine only penalty

  Average fine

  Average fine where fine only penalty

  Average fine

  Average fine where fine only penalty

  Average fine

  Average fine where fine only penalty

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  170

  187

  176

  166

  173

  163

  173

  164

  170

  156

  Sexual offences

  206

  201

  216

  202

  308

  238

  223

  209

  310

  258

  Burglary

  145

  148

  140

  142

  138

  138

  142

  143

  150

  150

  Robbery

  101

  90

  63

  60

  127

  122

  76

  110

  152

  98

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  114

  114

  114

  114

  109

  107

  106

  105

  99

  97

  Fraud and forgery

  209

  233

  183

  198

  266

  277

  202

  195

  212

  232

  Criminal damage

  102

  105

  103

  108

  109

  110

  111

  111

  105

  104

  Drug offences

  102

  104

  102

  102

  104

  102

  103

  102

  96

  94

  Other (non-motoring)

  229

  223

  264

  256

  375

  367

  415

  414

  404

  402

  Motoring (indictable)

  165

  165

  177

  176

  175

  174

  177

  175

  190

  189

  Total indictable offences

  150

  153

  158

  163

  188

  197

  195

  209

  186

  202

  Summary non-motoring offences

  99

  98

  103

  103

  103

  103

  104

  104

  105

  105

  Summary motoring offences

  160

  161

  166

  166

  161

  161

  163

  164

  162

  162

  Total all offences

  137

  138

  145

  145

  141

  142

  147

  148

  145

  146

  Drug Testing and Treatment Orders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the range of offenders who could be subject to a drug testing and treatment order; and if he will make a statement. [128397]

  Mr. Boateng
  None: all offenders aged 16 or over convicted of an offence for which a community sentence is appropriate may be made subject to a Drug Treatment and Testing Order provided that the court is satisfied that the offender is dependent on or has a propensity to misuse drugs, that treatment may be helpful and the offender has expressed his willingness to comply with the requirements of the order.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total central Government expenditure is on neighbourhood wardens; and if he will make a statement. [128387]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have allocated £13.5 million over the three years for a fund to pump-prime and evaluate new and existing neighbourhood
  68W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Home Office type approved speed cameras vary considerably in their technology and application. An average cost is not available.

  Fines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average level of fine was(a) issued for each category of offence in each of the last five years and (b) where a fine was the only penalty; and if he will make a statement. [128392]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information for 1994 to 1998 taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  warden schemes, starting in 2000–01 and jointly funded by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). Additionally, the Home Office and DETR are jointly funding a new inter-departmental unit, the Neighbourhood Wardens Unit, to take forward work on neighbourhood wardens including administering the fund.

  Casualties
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number was of(a) injuries and (b) deaths (i) per police force area and (ii) in total arising from (A) traffic accidents and (B) assaults and other violent crimes; and if he will make a statement. [128395]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested details on injuries and deaths resulting from assaults and other violent crimes are not collected centrally. Recorded crime data in relation to certain offences of violence against the person are given in the table. Please note that the offences given as wounding and assault may represent attempts, conspiring, inciting, aiding, abetting, causing or permitting, and not result in an actual injury.
  69W
  The British Crime Survey has estimated that, in 1997, there were 714,000 assaults with more than trivial injury ('wounding'), and 2,276,000 common assaults, ie physical assaults or attempted assault with at most slight bruising. These categories do not necessarily coincide with those from the recorded crime figures.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force year ending September 1999

  Police force

  Homicide

  Attempted murder and wounding or other act endangering life

  Other wounding (including racially aggravated other wounding)

  Assault on a constable and common assault (including racially aggravated common assault)

  Avon and Somerset

  19

  284

  3,856

  6,139

  Bedfordshire

  4

  223

  1,917

  2,138

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  238

  2,244

  1,875

  Cheshire

  9

  262

  2,815

  1,364

  Cleveland

  8

  108

  1,461

  1,047

  Cumbria

  3

  95

  2,627

  991

  Derbyshire

  12

  197

  3,306

  4,033

  Devon and Cornwall

  18

  376

  3,101

  5,444

  Dorset

  4

  96

  1,005

  1,379

  Durham

  8

  123

  1,393

  1,812

  Essex

  17

  92

  3,666

  2,832

  Gloucestershire

  9

  151

  1,552

  1,253

  Greater Manchester

  60

  2,318

  18,223

  10,247

  Hampshire

  18

  191

  5,339

  4,837

  Hertfordshire

  1

  135

  1,533

  920

  Humberside

  13

  296

  4,116

  2,535

  Kent

  16

  402

  5,679

  3,778

  Lancashire

  24

  438

  3,005

  2,965

  Leicestershire

  16

  313

  4,633

  3,636

  Lincolnshire

  7

  89

  1,654

  1,306

  London City of

  —

  7

  202

  118

  Merseyside

  31

  694

  7,631

  2,384

  Metropolitan Police

  188

  2,162

  39,960

  72,780

  Norfolk

  8

  193

  2,213

  1,771

  Northamptonshire

  7

  140

  1,116

  2,352

  Northumbria

  15

  448

  4,538

  3,442

  North Yorkshire

  3

  69

  1,491

  1,996

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  239

  6,775

  2,955

  South Yorkshire

  13

  421

  3,043

  1,930

  Staffordshire

  16

  40

  6,422

  1,697

  Suffolk

  4

  94

  1,881

  1,255

  Surrey

  1

  101

  2,344

  1,284

  Sussex

  19

  154

  5,955

  7,786

  Thames Valley

  21

  195

  5,672

  3,846

  Warwickshire

  4

  63

  893

  736

  West Mercia

  7

  187

  2,045

  3,449

  West Midlands

  50

  1,563

  11,114

  17,114

  West Yorkshire

  29

  876

  7,990

  4,000

  Wiltshire

  5

  50

  1,744

  2,088

  Dyfed-Powys

  4

  104

  1,841

  1,180

  Gwent

  1

  289

  3,113

  4,773

  North Wales

  6

  102

  1,952

  2,118

  South Wales

  26

  783

  4,891

  2,222

  England and Wales

  749

  15,401

  197,951

  203,807

  Road Fuels
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each(a) police authority and (b) fire authority, the amount of money spent on road fuels in the last financial year. [128380]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  70W
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recently published the transport statistical bulletin 'Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results 1999', which includes the requested details in table 6. This is available in the Library.

  Women Prisoners
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) undertaken on the effect on children of the imposition of custodial sentences on their mothers. [128122]

  Mr. Boateng
  The most recently published study of imprisoned mothers was 'Imprisoned Women and Mothers' by Caddle and Crisp. It was commissioned by the Prison Service and published in 1997 (Home Office
  71W
  Research Study 162). The entire female prisoner population at the end of 1994, comprising 1,766 women, were surveyed. In-depth interviews were conducted with the 61 per cent. of that population who were either pregnant or mothers of children under 18.

  In the report of a 'Review of Principles, Policies and Procedures on Mothers and Babies/Children in Prison' (Her Majesty's Prison Service July 1999) and the Prison Service's Response and Action Plan (December 1999), a number of areas of research concerning the children of women prisoners was recommended. The Prison Service is giving consideration to these recommendations. Copies of both documents were placed in the Library.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had on the establishment of family visiting areas in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [128124]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service places enormous importance on encouraging prisoners to maintain close family ties and to making family visits to prisoners as comfortable and productive as possible. This relates not only to the specific establishment of family visiting areas but also to a range of facilities such as the provision of visitors' centres and play areas. Moreover, there is increasing emphasis on delivering initiatives to fully maximise the potential for allowing prisoners to have extended contact with families through longer visits and temporary release; and facilitating the visits of families from long distances through the provision of financial support and assistance with accommodation.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to enable women who receive custodial sentences to make arrangements for the care of their dependent children prior to the start of their sentence. [128121]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have no immediate plans to make new arrangements for women or men with parental responsibilities to arrange child care prior to starting a custodial sentence. There may be opportunities while pre-sentence reports are being prepared for child care arrangements to be considered.

  However, the Government do take seriously the needs of women offenders in the criminal justice system, and a working group has been established to consider a strategy on women offenders, including the range of sentences available. Also, the team undertaking the Review of the Sentencing Framework, which was announced on 16 May, will bear the needs of women offenders in mind in formulating its recommendations.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of women prisoners who suffer from(a) drug and (b) alcohol addiction; and what proportion of these women are involved in detoxification programmes while in prison. [128123]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report of a study of Psychiatric Morbidity Amongst Prisoners in England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 for the Department of Health by the Office for National Statistics, indicated that in the year before entering prison, 36 per cent. of women on remand and 39 per cent. of sentenced women reported engaging 72W
  in hazardous drinking. Fifty four per cent. of women on remand and 41 per cent. of sentenced women reported some degree of drug dependence.

  The information sought in the second part of the question is not available in the form requested. Returns from Prison Service establishments show that in 1998–99, when almost 16,000 women were screened on reception into prison by healthcare staff, 3,091 completed drugs detoxification programmes and 413 completed alcohol detoxification programmes.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the working group established to develop a strategy for the treatment of women in prison to report. [128127]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report of the working group and the timing of any publication is under consideration.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Dr. Kumar

  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached by the action group on Anti-social Behaviour Orders led by the Chair of the Youth Justice Board; and if he will make a statement. [128801]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Anti-social Behaviour Order Action Group concluded that, in order to give increased impetus to the take-up of applications for Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), there was a need to spread the good practice that already existed in certain areas of the country. To achieve this, the Action Group drew up practical guidance on considering and applying for ASBOs, and also set up a series of seminars as a means of consulting on the draft guidance and of providing an opportunity to hear about, and discuss, the experiences of those who had successfully obtained such orders.

  Ten seminars were held in all, in each of the Government Regions in England and Wales, between early March and Easter this year. Following the successful conclusion of the seminars, the Action Group held their final meeting in May to complete their work on the draft guidance. I launched the booklet, "Anti-social Behaviour Orders: Guidance on drawing up Local ASBO Protocols", on 28 June. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Warner and the Action Group for all their work. I hope that the new guidance, which complements the guidance on ASBOs issued in March 1999, will enable the police and local authorities to make effective use of this important tool for dealing with anti-social behaviour.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Women's Unit Consultation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the policy discussion on the No. 10 website on issues raised by the consultation conducted by the Women's Unit will be launched; how long it will run; and how the information will be treated once the consultation is over. [127249]
  73W
  Ms Jowell
  The No. 10 website will host a policy discussion, on the issues arising from the Listening to Women Consultation, which will open on 3 July and will last between four and five weeks. It will cover issues such as work-life balance; support from Government for women's life choices; business start-ups; access to Information and Communications Technology; and the forthcoming Parental Leave and Maternity Review. A summary of the comments will be posted on the No. 10 website, along with a response statement from the Ministers for Women when the discussion period is over. The website address is www.number-10.gov.uk.

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many funded places were made available for the training of doctors at medical schools in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) the UK in each of the last five years; and what provision has been made for places in future years. [128319]

  Mr. Wicks
  The number of funded places made available for the training of doctors at medical schools in the past five years are:

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  UK total

  1995–96

  3,486

  874

  169

  170

  4,699

  1996–97

  3,594

  888

  185

  166

  4,833

  1997–98

  3,749

  934

  200

  179

  5,062

  1998–99

  3,735

  956

  200

  178

  5,069

  1999–2000

  3,980

  923

  226

  177

  5,306

  The Government announced in July 1998 that the annual intake of medical students in the UK would be increased over the period to 2005 by about 1,000 places. In England the Higher Education Funding Council for England has announced the allocation of a total of 1,126 additional places. The funding to the Council takes these new places into account. A further increase in the number of medical students is being considered in recognition of the rapid development of services to underpin modernisation of the National Health Service. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland these matters are for the devolved Administrations.

  Primary School Teachers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps he has taken to increase the number of male primary school teachers; [128291]

  (2) what steps he has taken to increase the recruitment of male undergraduates to primary school teacher training. [128292]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government recognise that men are currently under-represented in primary schools and would therefore like to see more qualifying as primary teachers. The trial introduction of £6,000 training salaries for postgraduate primary training may well encourage more applications from men for 2000–01. This 74W
  will be evaluated. Under-represented groups, including men in the primary sector, will also be a priority target for the new £13,000 grants to schools who accept a trainee on the employment-based Graduate Teacher Programme.

  The Teacher Training Agency has asked all providers of initial teacher training to set targets and draw up Action Plans for increasing the numbers of men entering undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Over 90 per cent. have now done so. In addition, more than a quarter of the taster courses funded by the Teacher Training Agency in the period June 2000–August 2001, which are designed to give prospective trainee teachers an insight into what teaching is like, are specifically focused on recruiting men.

  School-based Learning Assistants
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is available to supply the training needs of primary school-based learning assistants; and if he will make a statement. [128746]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Between 1999–2002, we are making available to local education authorities in England a total of £350 million to meet the cost of recruiting and training the equivalent of 20,000 new teaching assistants and to support the training of more experienced teaching assistants, so that they may develop their skills and further their careers. Of the allocation which they devolve to schools, local education authorities should pass at least 80 per cent. to primary schools.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average primary class size in Cumbria was in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [128285]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requested information is shown in the following table.

  In the Cumbria local education authority area, the number of pupils in key stage 1 classes of 31 or more pupils was 854 in January 2000, compared with 2,572 a year earlier. This means that as few as 5.3 per cent. of these pupils remain in classes of over 30 pupils. Allocations of funding in Cumbria to support reductions in infant class sizes have so far amounted to £3.7 million. This funding has helped reduce the average size of key stage 1 classes in the Parliamentary constituency of Carlisle from 27.6 in January 1997, to 25 in January 2000. Over the same time period, the average size of key stage 2 classes in the constituency has fallen from 27.4 to 26.3; and the size of the average primary class from 27.4 to 25.7.

  The Government are well on target to deliver their infant class size pledge in England with some £620 million made available to support the pledge. The number of pupils in infant classes of over 30 pupils has already fallen by 300,000.
  75W

  Size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in Cumbria local education authority 1979 to 2000

  Position as at January each year

  Key stage 1

  Key stage 2

  Overall primary1

  Average class size

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Average class size

  Average class size

  20002

  23.7

  854

  26.4

  25.2

  1999

  24.9

  2,572

  26.8

  25.9

  1998

  25.7

  3,978

  26.7

  26.2

  1997

  25.9

  3,788

  26.9

  26.3

  1996

  26.3

  4,476

  26.2

  26.0

  1995

  3—

  3—

  3—

  26.2

  1994

  3—

  3—

  3—

  26.3

  1993

  3—

  3—

  3—

  25.5

  1992

  3—

  3—

  3—

  25.4

  1991

  3—

  3—

  3—

  25.2

  1990

  3—

  3—

  3—

  24.8

  1989

  3—

  3—

  3—

  24.4

  1988

  3—

  3—

  3—

  24.1

  1987

  3—

  3—

  3—

  23.7

  1986

  3—

  3—

  3—

  23.8

  1985

  3—

  3—

  3—

  23.2

  1984

  3—

  3—

  3—

  23.0

  1983

  3—

  3—

  3—

  23.4

  1982

  3—

  3—

  3—

  23.9

  1981

  3—

  3—

  3—

  24.1

  1980

  3—

  3—

  3—

  24.7

  1979

  3—

  3—

  3—

  25.2

  1Includes nursery, classes and mixed key stage classes.

  2Provisional

  3Not available (information not collected by specific key stages)

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of classes of five, six and seven-year-olds in the Crosby constituency have been reduced since 1997. [127173]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Department does not identify or monitor individual classes or registration groups.

  The Government are well on target to deliver their pledge to limit infant classes to 30 pupils. In Crosby parliamentary constituency, the average size of key stage 1 classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools went down from 28.3 pupils per class in January 1997 to 26.2 pupils per class in January 2000. Since January 1997, there were 830 fewer pupils in Crosby schools being educated in key stage 1 classes of 31 or more, which represents a reduction by two-thirds of the number of pupils being educated in such classes.

  Inner-city Schools
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent steps his Department has taken to improve standards in inner city schools. [128262]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In order to improve standards in inner city schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has introduced Excellence in Cities (EiC). This is building on the measures already introduced to raise standards in all schools such as the literacy and numeracy strategies. The programme was launched in March 1999, and initially covered secondary schools in 25 authorities. It expanded in March this year to include a further 22 authorities and 76W
  a primary pilot in the original EiC authority areas. Total spending for Excellence in Cities will be some £400 million over the first three years of the programme.

  As a direct result of the first phase of the programme, there are already:

  Some 800 learning mentors appointed and working in schools;

  49 City Learning Centres identified—the first to open in the autumn;

  Over 200 learning support units established;

  Some 100 clusters of schools working together to enhance opportunities for gifted and talented pupils;

  42 small Education Action Zones planned, with some already on stream; and

  82 Beacon Schools and 25 specialist schools approved.

  Phase 2 will see comparable developments in the new EiC partnership areas.

  School Places (St. Albans)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to help ensure that Hertfordshire Local Education Authority is able to increase the provision of school places in St. Albans to match(a) current needs and (b) future requirements generated by new housing developments; and if he will make a statement. [128143]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is the Local Education Authority's responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient school places within its area. It is under a duty to plan and keep under review the supply of school places, in the light of such issues as proposed housing development, so as to ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet demand.

  The Department has supported bids for capital funding from Hertfordshire which met the published criteria for basic need. The Local Education Authority can make further bids for capital funding if need continues to grow. Such bids will be sought from Local Education Authorities in September through the Annual Capital Guideline process.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools which have been granted funding for teacher training, indicating in each case their(a) phase and (b) location. [128105]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools that have received grant from the Teacher Training Agency through their involvement in School Centred Initial Teacher Training consortiums are set out in table A. Table B lists the additional schools that will receive grant from September 2000. Many other schools receive funding through various initial teacher training partnership arrangements. The allocation of funds in such cases is decided locally.

  Table A

  School

  Primary

  Secondary

  Challney High School for Boys, Luton

  No

  Yes

  Clacton County High School, Clacton-on-Sea

  No

  Yes

  Charles Darwin School, Biggin Hill, Kent

  No

  Yes

  Mill Hill County High School, London

  No

  Yes

  Buttsbury Infant School, Billericay

  Yes

  No

  Woodrow First School, Redditch

  Yes

  No

  77W

  Table A

  School

  Primary

  Secondary

  Leigh City Technical College, Dartford, Kent

  No

  Yes

  Sharnbrook Upper School and Community College, Bedfordshire

  No

  Yes

  West Oxford County Primary School, Oxford

  Yes

  No

  Swaffield Primary School, London

  Yes

  No

  All Hallows RC High School, Preston

  No

  Yes

  St. Peter's High School, Gloucester

  No

  Yes

  Thomas Telford School, Shropshire

  No

  Yes

  Chelmer Valley High School, Chelmsford, Essex

  No

  Yes

  Wigmore Primary School, Luton

  Yes

  No

  South East Essex College, Southend-on-Sea

  No

  Yes

  St. Thomas High School, Exeter

  No

  Yes

  Sponne School, Northampton

  No

  Yes

  Dartford Grammar School, Kent

  No

  Yes

  Weymouth College, Dorset

  No

  Yes

  Table B

  School

  Primary

  Secondary

  Copnor Junior School, Portsmouth

  Yes

  No

  Penair School, Truro, Cornwall

  No

  Yes

  Chestnut Grove School, Balham, London

  No

  Yes

  South Benfleet Primary School, Chelmsford

  Yes

  No

  Holy Family Catholic Primary School, Southampton

  Yes

  No

  Northampton School for Boys, Northampton

  No

  Yes

  Wells Park Primary School and Training Centre, Chigwell, Essex

  Yes

  No

  Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College, London

  No

  Yes

  St. Brendan's Sixth Form College, Bristol

  No

  Yes

  Michael Sobell Sinai Primary, Middlesex

  Yes

  No

  Early-years Education
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the additional costs of making early-years education freely available to all three-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [127505]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 March 2000, Official Report, column 314W.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of SCOPE's report on disability access entitled "Left Out"; and what action he is taking to encourage employers(a) to comply with the requirements of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and (b) to accept the business case for disabled access. [127597]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The Government have seen a draft copy of the report on SCOPE's Left Out campaign and we will consider it after it is launched on 3 July.

  The Government are taking a number of steps to encourage service providers to comply with the requirements of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and accept the business case for disabled access. On 29 June 1999, we published a Code of Practice
  78W
  which explains the duties under Part III and gives practical guidance on implementation. On 1 October last year, to coincide with further rights under Part III coming into force, we published an information booklet called "An Introduction for Small and Medium-sized Businesses". This explains the duties businesses and organisations have under Part III.

  On 1 October 2004, the final stage of rights under Part III of the DDA will come into force. From then, in addition to their current duties, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to tackle physical features which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service. On 8 May 2000 the Government and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) launched a joint consultation exercise on a revised version of the Part III Code, a Practical Guide for service providers and the Government's proposals for a small number of Regulations under the Act. The consultation documents have been sent to a wide range of businesses and organisations. The exercise will last for three months. The DRC will consider the views expressed in the consultation before preparing final versions of the Code and Guide.

  The DRC also has a part in encouraging employers to accept the business case for disabled people. Part of the DRC's remit is to be a central source of information and advice on the DDA. Employers and service providers are a key target audience and the DRC's Helpline is currently being promoted to business via advertisements in the regional and trade press. An interactive service is available between 8.00 and 20.00, and a range of leaflets and factsheets on all parts of the DDA is available free of charge. An ordering facility is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 269W, on the Standards Fund, if he will break down the way in which sums surrendered for the Standards Fund were used. [128065]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The sums surrendered for the Standards Fund 2000–01 were mainly used to provide further support for LEAs and schools to achieve the objectives of the specific grants in the programme, in particular Special Educational Needs, National Grid for Learning, and Protecting and Expanding Music Services. In addition, £9 million of the surrendered amount is being used to fund the new Pupil Allowance Scheme, announced on 27 April, for secondary schools in Excellence in Cities areas who accept difficult pupils outside the normal school admission round.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many families(a) in Coventry, South, (b) in the West Midlands Region and (c) nationally will benefit from Government measures aimed at helping lone parents balance work and family life. [127245]
  79W
  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: We do not yet have information about how many families will benefit as a result of the Work-Life Balance Campaign. This is a general campaign from which everybody stands to benefit: the economy; businesses; society; families, including those headed by lone parents; and individuals.

  The New Deal for Lone Parents is a specific measure designed to help those lone parents on Income Support into work. Between October 1998 when the programme was rolled out nationally and the end of March 2000, NDLP has helped 94 lone parents in the Coventry, South constituency into jobs. The figure for the West Midlands Employment Service Region is 4,021 and the figure nationally is 44,640. Taking into account the earlier phases of NDLP the figure is 50,911. The Government have recently announced an expansion to this programme to allow support to be given to more lone parents.

  School Funding (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the primary schools in Warrington, North constituency which have received additional money to reduce class sizes. [127319]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: The schools in Warrington, North which have received additional funding as part of the Government's initiative to limit infant classes to 30 pupils are as set out. £620 million is available to support the initiative, and allocations so far to Warrington LEA amount to £2.8 million. This has helped to reduce the size of the average Key Stage 1 class in Warrington, North to 25.9. The figure in January 1997 was 27.5. The number of children in infant classes of 31 or more pupils in the constituency has fallen from 1,450 in January 1997, to 710 in January 2000.

  Brook Acre Community Primary

  Callands Primary

  Croft Primary

  Culcheth Community Primary

  St. Andrew's CE Primary

  St. Elphin's Fairfield CE VA Primary

  St. Margaret's CE VA Primary

  St. Paul of the Cross Catholic Primary

  Twiss Green Community Primary

  Westbrook Old Hall Primary

  Winwick CE Primary

  Woolston Community Primary.

  Special Schools (Closures)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many special schools were approved for closure in each year since 1992. [122229]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally. While the date on which a school actually closes is a matter of public record, the date on which approval to close it was given is much less easy to identify and it has not been possible to obtain consistent information, despite every effort having been made to do so over the past few weeks.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Energy Use
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms he uses for monitoring energy use in different sectors of the economy. [127454]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government collect information on energy use in different sectors from a variety of sources, including returns from energy companies themselves. Further information on energy use in different sectors of the economy, including data sources, may be found in the annual Digest of UK Energy Statistics. A copy of the 1999 edition has been placed in the Library. The 2000 edition will be published on 27 July.

  Figures showing energy consumption by broad sectors of the economy, on a quarterly basis, are routinely published in the Department's monthly statistical bulletin, "Energy Trends".

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made in partnership with Transco on implementing the affordable warmth programme in advance of next winter. [127573]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  There has been significant progress on Affordable Warmth since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry trailed the scheme in a speech last October. The Government have worked closely with Transco in developing the scheme, and, in particular, have amended the rules on capital allowances to encourage the use of lease financing for domestic central heating equipment which is central to the scheme's operation.

  The scheme was formally launched to MPs, local authorities, and the fuel poverty lobby by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 8 June. Transco subsequently presented the scheme to Welsh housing providers in Cardiff on 26 June.

  There are two separate aspects to the scheme—the installation of central heating and insulation in the homes of the fuel poor, and the development of training opportunities for those employed through the scheme. On the first of these, Transco have given 175 presentations about the scheme to social housing providers, and planned installations so far include Inverclyde Council (3,500 homes) and Derby City Council (600 homes). Discussions are proceeding with Leicester City Council (3,000 homes). Many more housing providers—including Blaenau Gwent—have expressed interest.

  Transco estimate that at least 3,000 homes will be treated by the end of the calendar year 2000, and perhaps many more than that as the scheme gathers momentum. We expect a million homes to be improved under the scheme over the next five years. This will significantly reduce the incidence of fuel poverty.
  81W
  On the training front, there are already three live projects:
  in Leicester, the first Environ Energy Advocates Project course began at the end of May, with six people trained so far and 40 projected by the beginning of December:
  the Fenland District Council Central Heating in Partnership Scheme (CHIPS) begins on I July, for completion by 1 December, with 50 people to be trained:
  the Affordable Warmth team is working in conjunction with the Gas Industry Training Organisation (GINTO) on the competition to create a training framework for adults coming into the gas installation and maintenance business.

  Other projects currently under discussion include:
  a partnership being developed between Transco and Braunstone's New Deal Task Force, to train 200 members of the community in Affordable Warmth-related skills (10 per cent. through New Deal, 50 Gas Installation Engineers) over a three-year period;
  a bid to establish a consortium capable of delivering demand-led gas industry training in the London area (as part of the GINTO adult framework competition), to which Affordable Warmth have been invited to provide some funding.

  Further regeneration areas being targeted include Hull and Luton. Transco expect that the scheme will create 10,000 training opportunities, with 3,000 of those becoming fully-qualified gas fitters. It is also expected that 3,000 opportunities will be made available for people under the New Deal.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work he is carrying out in collaboration with National Energy Action to relieve conditions of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. [127576]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has supported the work of National Energy Action (NEA) for many years. This year it will be providing grant funding of £736,000 towards NEA's work in England, concentrating on: support to local authorities in developing affordable warmth strategies for their area; identifying how to reach fuel poor households in rural areas; and development of referral networks among ethnic minority communities.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of media campaigns in reducing the incidence of drink driving. [124053]

  Mr. Hill
  Our drink drive media campaigns have aimed to stimulate media and public awareness of the message not to drink and drive. They have also provided a focus for co-ordinated complementary activity by police forces, local authorities and many others in the public and private sectors. Effectiveness is measured on an ongoing basis by:market research which tracks, each month, advertising recall and changes in attitudes across a range of road safety issues,
  behaviour change indicators such as proportions failing breath tests and, over the longer term,
  casualty statistics.

  The tables show the reduction in casualties and in the percentage of positive breath tests over recent years.
  82W

  Fatalities and serious injuries in drink drive accidents 1979 and 1998

  Year

  1979

  1998

  Percentage difference

  Fatalities

  1,640

  460

  -72

  Serious injuries

  8,300

  2520

  -70

  Percentage of breath tests which were positive/refused 1988–1998

  Year

  Percentage positive/refused

  1988

  25

  1989

  20

  1990

  17

  1991

  16

  1992

  17

  1993

  15

  1994

  14

  1995

  13

  1996

  13

  1997

  13

  19981

  12

  1Provisional

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has(a) been and (b) asked to be provided with information on whether any of the conventional rapeseed grown in the farm-scale evaluations contains genetically modified rapeseed; and if he will place copies of the written information in his possession in that regard in the Library. [126098]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: I have been advised that none of the Farm Scale Evaluation sites in England have been planted with the affected batches of Advanta Hyola rapeseeds, but I understand that the evaluation site in Scotland has been.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the statement on 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 475, when the seed purity checks were put in place; how many consignments of GM seeds have been checked to date; to what degree of purity the seeds were tested; and what were the results of the tests. [126855]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: My Department has asked the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) to check for GM contamination of imports of oilseed rape and maize, as part of CSL's wider responsibilities for inspection and enforcement relating to GM releases and marketing. CSL are currently compiling data from which an appropriate inspection programme is being developed.

  The programme will be in place in good time for the sowing of winter oilseed rape, which CSL will consider as its first priority.

  Departmental Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) make, (b) model and (c) number of each make and model of car (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department; and what is the (1) purchase price and (2) annual cost of the lease of each car. [127396]
  83W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information about the make and model of cars owned or leased by my Department has been placed in the Library of the House. Information about purchase price and lease costs is not held centrally.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127390]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None of the telephone lines of DETR(c) currently use an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) system.

  Pursuant to my answer of 22 June 2000, Official Report, column 245W, I have been informed that two of the Department's Agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Driving Standards Agency (DSA)—make limited IVR facilities available to callers not using touch-tone telephones. DVLA has 345 telephone lines and DSA has up to 380 lines that have this facility.

  I apologise for the error in my previous answer.

  Regional Planning Guidance (South East)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much funding was allocated for distributing copies of the draft regional planning guidance for the South East. [127798]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The costs to date met by Government of distributing copies of draft regional planning guidance for the South East have been approximately £3,500 by my Department, and approximately £12,300 incurred by the Government Office for the South East.

  Gas Safety Review
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many responses were received to the consultation on the "Gas Safety Review: Options for Change" document; [127972]

  (2) if he will list (a) the organisations and (b) the individuals responding. [127982]

  Mr. Meacher
  In total 664 replies to the Options for Change discussion exercise were received by HSE. These comprise 290 responses to questions raised by the main discussion document, and the associated document Key Issues for Consumers; and 374 responses to questionnaires from consumers in Glasgow and Lambeth, arising from related consultative exercises arranged jointly with local authorities.

  A list of the organisations and individuals who responded has been placed in the House of Commons Library, and in HSE's Information Centres in London, Sheffield and Bootle.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement concerning changes to be implemented following the "Gas Safety Review: Options for Change" document. [127983]
  84W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Commission plans to report to Ministers with findings and recommendations during the summer. In the light of that we will make an announcement.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the HSE to reach conclusions on the "Gas Safety Review: Options for Change" document. [127984]

  Mr. Meacher
  The review is being carried out on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission. HSC is likely to reach conclusions in the summer, before reporting to Ministers.

  London Boroughs Central Support Protection Grant
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the central support protection grant for London boroughs in order to implement the Government's priorities. [127850]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We announced during the debate on this year's Local Government Finance Settlement, on 3 February 2000,Official Report, column 1271, that we intend to use the same central support protection grant arrangements for 2001–02 that we used for this year. These arrangements ensure an increase of at least 1.5 per cent. in grant for London boroughs and other local authorities with education and social service responsibilities.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of driverless trains on the London Underground in relation to attributable delays, with special reference to peak hour traffic; and for what reason not all new rolling stock is equipped for driverless operation. [128041]

  Mr. Hill
  All London Underground trains have drivers. However, it is true that Automatic Train Operation (ATO) gives improved consistency of performance. ATO is already used on the Victoria line and on parts of the Central line. The driver, however, can always override the system if necessary. There are plans to extend its use on the Central line later this year and ATO for other lines will be considered at times of major upgrade.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of the London Underground Central Line in 1999 in relation to attributable delays, with special reference to the age of rolling stock involved. [128040]

  Mr. Hill
  New rolling stock was introduced on the Central Line in 1993 and 1994, which incorporated a number of revolutionary new train system developments from which passengers are already benefiting. London Underground are working to remedy particular problems with the final trainborne element of the Automatic Train Operation (ATO) signalling system.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment
  85W
  he has made of the impact of the Draft Programme on Climate Change on the additional costs which would fall on (a) air conditioning manufacturers and (b) consumers in the United Kingdom from a ban on the use of HFCs; and if he will make a statement on the draft programme's impact on the international competitiveness of UK air conditioning manufacturing. [128039]

  Mr. Meacher
  No assessment has been made of the additional costs that would fall on air conditioning manufacturers and consumers from a ban on the use of HFCs because the Government have not proposed such a ban.

  The draft climate change programme includes a policy statement on HFCs that sends a clear signal to industry and users not to use HFCs where more environmentally acceptable, safe, technically feasible and cost-effective alternatives exist. At the same time we recognise that HFCs are necessary to replace ozone-depleting substances in some applications, and that HFC emissions reduction strategies should not undermine commitments to phase out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol.

  The Government have made it clear that they aim to put in place a climate change programme that safeguards and enhances UK competitiveness. We recognise the concern business has expressed about the implications of action on climate change for the UK's international competitiveness, but believe that the measures in the draft programme are consistent with that aim.

  West Coast Mainline Upgrade
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to ensure that Railtrack provide the signalling infrastructure, as part of the West Coast Mainline Upgrade, to give the train operating company holding the franchise for the St. Albans Abbey to Watford Junction line the ability to operate through services to London from St. Albans Abbey station. [128142]

  Mr. Hill
  Trains from St. Albans Abbey can operate at present onto the main line at Watford Junction with special permission, although not for regular services. As part of the current plans for the West Coast Main Line Upgrade a new island platform, which can take eight car trains, will be constructed at Watford Junction to replace platform 11 currently used by St. Albans Abbey trains. The associated new signalling will allow trains to pass to and from the London Euston lines on a regular basis. It would then be a matter for the franchise operator to discuss with interested local stakeholders the need for and viability of through services between London Euston and St. Albans Abbey via Watford Junction.

  Seat Belts
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, columns 3–4W, on seat belts, if he will list the Scottish local authorities participating in the public consultation exercise on draft regulations regarding the fitting of seat belts; and if he will make a statement. [127912]
  86W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 29 June 2000]: As the proposals concerned the national implementation of European Directive vehicle construction provisions, only those local authorities which had previously expressed a specific interest in the issue were consulted, which included no Scottish authorities.

  Housing
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he intends to take to increase housing supply on(a) brownfield and (b) urban sites. [128314]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing, issued in March, provides guidance on planning for housing. One of its main objectives is to ensure that better use is made of previously developed land and buildings for additional housing, particularly within urban areas. PPG3 has introduced a sequential approach which requires previously developed land and buildings in urban areas to be considered for development in preference to greenfield sites.

  Incinerators
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he takes of local objections when deciding on planning applications for building incinerators. [128811]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  When my right hon. Friend decides any planning application he does so after having looked carefully at all the relevant considerations, including all representations made to him, whether in favour of the proposed development or against it.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he gives on the desirability of siting waste incinerators near to principal sources of waste where the proposed site is(a) rural and (b) urban; and if he will make a statement. [128810]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance to local authorities is given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 (Planning and Waste Management), published in September 1999. This states that the "proximity principle" is one of the key principles on which waste management decisions should be based, namely that waste should generally be managed as near as possible to its place of production, because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact. This holds good equally for rural and urban locations.

  The other key principles to be followed in decisions on the siting of waste incinerators are:
  consideration of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)—the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as the short term;
  regional self-sufficiency—that most waste should be treated or disposed of in the region in which it is produced;
  the waste hierarchy—a theoretical framework which acts as a guide to assessing the BPEO in selecting waste management options.

  A130
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to integrate the A130 into a second London orbital road; and if he will make a statement. [128617]

  Mr. Hill
  The A130 forms a major North-South route through Essex linking the towns of Great Dunmow and Chelmsford with South East Essex and Basildon. It carries a substantial volume of traffic, passing through communities with consequent environmental and safety problems for the residents.

  The A130 Improvement, South of Chelmsford, is being constructed as a local bypass for some of these communities and to relieve them of the effects of the traffic. It is not intended that this or any length of the A130 should become part of a second London orbital road.

  Montreal Convention
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made in relation to the Montreal Convention to ensure UK passengers will be able to claim compensation for psychiatric injury caused by air accidents; and if he will make a statement. [128317]

  Mr. Hill
  Damages for mental injury caused by air accidents are already recoverable in the UK when associated with physical injury. In preparation for the Diplomatic Conference held in Montreal in May 1999, at which the Convention was signed, the UK supported a proposal by Sweden for a separate head of claim for mental injury. Prior to the Conference, however, that proposal was withdrawn from the draft text of the Convention. Our position was that a separate claim for mental injury could be advocated only if there was sufficient support to gain global agreement. There was not

  Property and violent crime on whole railway network 1994–99

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Property crime

  Criminal damage

  9,892

  10,502

  9,127

  7,261

  6,543

  Theft passenger property/goods

  20,766

  21,206

  18,625

  19,381

  19,099

  Vehicle crime

  19,817

  20,811

  18,011

  15,220

  14,337

  Theft railway property/burglary

  8,472

  7,986

  7,138

  6,098

  6,619

  Total

  49,055

  50,003

  43,774

  40,699

  40,055

  Violent crime

  Notifiable violent offences

  1,735

  1,571

  1,547

  1,639

  1,751

  Notifiable sexual offences

  578

  603

  675

  756

  680

  Robberies

  1,846

  2,431

  2,273

  1,836

  1,874

  Total

  4,159

  4,605

  4,495

  4,231

  4,305

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what proportion of railway stations have become accredited as secure stations; what standards have to be met to achieve the accreditation; what measures he is taking to ensure more stations are so accredited; and if he will make a statement. [128302]

  Mr. Hill
  There are currently 61 stations accredited under the Secure Stations Scheme (out of approximately 2,800 stations in Great Britain). The Secure Stations Scheme, which was launched in April 1998, is designed 88W
  sufficient support so, in the interest of securing the best deal for the UK, it was decided to support the text of the Convention without a separate reference to mental injury. The Conference "travaux préparatoires", nevertheless, indicate that damages for mental injury can be recovered in certain states and that jurisprudence in this area is developing.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards ratification of the Montreal Convention. [128316]

  Mr. Hill
  Primary legislation in the form of a new Carriage by Air Act is required before the UK can ratify the Montreal Convention. We aim to introduce that legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Convention requires ratification by 30 states before it can come into force. To date, three states have deposited instruments of ratification.

  Stations (Crime)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) property and (b) violent crimes were recorded by the British Transport Police at (i) railway stations and (ii) coach and bus stations in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [128303]

  Mr. Hill
  The British Transport Police (BTP) are responsible for policing the national railway, London Underground and a number of light rail systems. They do not police coach or bus facilities.

  The BTP's crime database does not allow the figures for crime locations to be extracted easily and providing the figures for railway stations alone could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The tables include figures for property and violent crime over the last five years on the whole railway network.

  to improve and standardise good security practices at all overground and underground stations. To become an accredited Secure Station, each station operator needs to work with their local British Transport Police Crime Prevention Operator to ensure that their station meets the national standards on design and management to cut down crime. The standards relate to such measures as staff training, Help Points, CCTV, lighting and information. Operators also have to conduct an independent passenger survey to see whether passengers feel safe at the station and provide evidence that crime rates are low.
  89W
  We are aware that a number of stations are currently working towards accreditation and we are hopeful of having around 100 stations accredited by the end of the year. We will continue to work with the rail industry to encourage further accreditations.

  Powershift Programme
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce a decision about Safeway's application for grant funding from the Powershift programme for assistance towards the acquisition of 40 gas powered trucks; and if he will make a statement. [128374]

  Mr. Meacher
  Safeway's application for grant funding exceeds the £250,000 discretionary cap that may generally be offered by the Powershift programme to a single company. This cap was introduced to ensure that many organisations could benefit from Powershift grants rather than all of the programme's budget being used to support a large order for vehicles from a single company. The cap is discretionary, however, and there will be cases where larger grants can be justified because they will make a significant impact on the market for alternative fuels.

  Powershift's advisory panel, comprising officials from my Department, DTI and the Energy Saving Trust, is meeting today to agree the level of grant funding to be offered to Safeway's. The Trust will announce the decision of the panel immediately following this meeting.

  Rail Freight Competition
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment was made by the consultants for the sSRA's recent rail freight competition of the viability of the mechanical engineering performance claims and their costs for the three projects that made the final of the competition; and if the consultants highlighted any limitations of use or cost-effectiveness of the winning products; [128373]

  (2) which consultancy firm was retained by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority for its recent rail freight competition; and what were the headings of its remit. [128381]

  Mr. Hill
  The consultants appointed to review the proposals for the sSRA's railfreight competition were Ove Amp and Partners. Their remit was to review the five shortlisted proposals submitted by applicants for the competition and to provide an independent assessment of each proposal using the criteria published by the sSRA.

  The consultant's remit did not include any requirement to make an assessment of the viability of the mechanical engineering performance claims for the five shortlisted entries. There was a requirement to review the costs proposed and whether they were realistic and robust for each project. There was also a requirement to examine the applicability of the proposed project to other supply chains. The sSRA subsequently made its own assessment and judged the proposals on value for money criteria.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list 90W
  the funding made available in each year since 1984–85 to each local authority for spending on schemes to encourage cycling; [128378]

  (2) how much the Government spent in each year since 1984–85 on schemes to encourage cycling. [128379]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  As far as local authority schemes are concerned no separate funding is made available to encourage cycling. It is for individual authorities to decide the amount spent on cycling from their overall total allocation of funding.

  Between 1991–92 and 1999–2000, local highway authorities received funding for integrated transport packages and minor works, including cycling, as part of the annual local transport capital settlement. From 2000–01 onwards, authorities will receive an integrated capital block allocation each year for all local transport and maintenance purposes except schemes costing more than £5 million, which are funded separately.

  The following table gives details of allocations from 1991–92 to 2000–01, from which spending on schemes to encourage cycling could be made.

  £ million

  Year

  Amount available

  1991–92

  120

  1992–93

  109

  1993–94

  125

  1994–95

  70

  1995–96

  128

  1996–97

  118

  1997–98

  79

  1998–99

  85

  1999–2000

  160

  2000–01

  250

  As to other expenditure the Department funds research into promoting cycling and making it safer. We issue guidance based on the results of research through our Local Transport Notes and Traffic Advisory Leaflets. In addition we are funding the marketing of the National Cycling Strategy and in 1996–97 around £2 million were provided by the Department to fund schemes in the Cycle Challenge project.

  M4 Bus Lane
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of producing the video of the M4 bus lane entitled, "The First Three Months"; how many copies of the video were made; and how many have been distributed. [128377]

  Mr. Hill
  The only publication entitled "The First Three Months" was a leaflet. 10,000 were printed at a cost of £1,419.40 (including VAT). About 9,600 have been distributed since it was first made available at the Earls Court Motor Show held in October 1999.

  Air Traffic Control (Software Failure)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the flight
  91W
  data software that failed at West Drayton on Saturday 17 June is no longer in use; and if he will make a statement. [128376]

  Mr. Hill
  The software version that was withdrawn on 17 June was subjected to analysis and the fault identified. A suitable software remedy was devised and, following thorough testing, the version was restored to the Flight Data Processing System during the quiet hours overnight on 26 to 27 June.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the software failure at West Drayton air traffic control centre on 26 June. [128372]

  Mr. Hill
  The software failure that occurred at 14.49 hours GMT at the London Area and Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton on 26 June was caused by a flight plan that could not be processed. The system was out of service for only three minutes. NATS has identified the software fault and is in the process of identifying and testing a suitable software remedy. This fault is totally unrelated to the failure on 17 June which was caused by a latent design fault in the flight strip printing system.

  Signals Passed at Danger
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent incidents of signals passed at danger by trains on lines on the approaches to Paddington Station. [128375]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive independently investigates all serious incidents of signals passed at danger (SPADs). They are investigating a number of recent incidents in the Paddington area, and in particular an incident on 16 June when a Thames Trains Turbo passed a signal at danger at Royal Oak. HSE has ensured that the computer tapes from the signal box and from the train's on-board data recorders have been secured as evidence. HSE has also been seeking further assurances from Railtrack regarding the safe working of trains between Slough and Paddington. Following the completion of HSE's inquiries, the results of their investigations will be included in HSE's monthly "signals passed at danger" report to Ministers, copies of which are placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans London Underground has developed to cope with the increase in traffic at King's Cross-St. Pancras underground station once Phase II of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is completed with King's Cross-St. Pancras as its terminus; and if he will place a copy of these plans in the Library. [128371]

  Mr. Hill
  Improvements to King's Cross-St. Pancras underground station have always been envisaged as part of the works for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. In January 1999 my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), announced that these improvements were to go ahead and be financed by Government as part of their contribution to the link.
  92W
  The improvements include two new ticket halls and new passageways at the station which will double its existing capacity and allow it to cope with the expected influx of passengers using Eurostar when the high speed link to the Channel Tunnel opens. They will also meet the requirements of the Fennel report into the King's Cross underground station fire. Construction is due to start later this year and be completed in time for the opening of the full link (currently expected in 2007).

  I will arrange for a copy of an outline plan for the new ticket halls to placed in the Library of the House.

  Coulsdon Inner Relief Road
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when construction of the A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road will commence; [128382]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's powers in respect of the construction of the Coulsdon Inner Relief Road in 2001. [128295]

  Mr. Hill
  As from today (3 July), Transport for London is the highway and traffic authority for the A23 which is part of the GLA Road Network. The question of progressing schemes related to GLA roads is a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will call for a report from Railtrack on the near head-on crash on the London-Liverpool Street line to Colchester on Sunday 25 June; and if he will make a statement. [128523]

  Mr. Hill
  Both Railtrack and the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE)'s Railway Inspectorate are carrying out investigations. The results of HSE's investigation will be included in the monthly "signals passed at danger" report to Ministers, copies of which are placed in the House of Commons Library.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  House of Lords Reform
  Ann Keen
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her plans for a joint committee of both Houses to consider the parliamentary aspects of reform of the House of Lords, as set out in the White Paper "Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords" (Cm 4183). [129008]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As I confirmed on 19 June, we aim to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the Parliamentary implications of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords' proposals for the composition of the second chamber, which the Government have broadly accepted. We intend that it should begin work as soon as possible after the summer recess. We are opening discussions through the usual channels in both Houses on the membership and precise terms of reference.

CABINET OFFICE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to "The Government's Measures of Success: Output and Performance Analyses", published by HM Treasury on 31 March 1999, pages 116 and 117, if she will state the targets she has set(a) for the percentage of all named day parliamentary questions to be answered substantially by the date specified by the hon. Member and (b) for answering ordinary written parliamentary questions within five days of the date specified by the hon. Member. [127664]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  We aim to answer all parliamentary questions on time and we will continue to look at ways to improve our performance.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many agencies of her Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [127115]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency, which is the only agency of the Cabinet Office, does not normally deal with members of the general public and does not use interactive voice response systems.

  The Central Office of Information is a department and executive agency that reports to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. It does not itself use interactive voice response systems when dealing with inquires that it receives directly from the general public. However, as part of its Direct Marketing services it employs agents, on behalf of Government clients, who use interactive voice response systems as a backup to live handling of calls.

TREASURY

  Internet Purchasing
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he is making to accommodate the increased quantities of letters and parcels containing goods from overseas likely to result from internet purchasing while such letters and parcels are being assessed for VAT and import duties. [126095]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  These are matters for the Post Office and other companies handling such packets to determine in liaison with HM Customs and Excise.

  British Telecom
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Treasury's residual holding of British Telecom plc shares. [129190]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On 27 June 2000, the Treasury sold 11,096,309 ordinary shares in British Telecom plc which it had held following earlier share sales. The shares were sold, via a competitive auction conducted by ABN AMRO Rothschild on the Treasury's behalf, to Schroder 94W
  Salomon Smith Barney at a price of £9.25¼ per share, generating total proceeds of £102.7 million. The Treasury now retains only a very small number of shares to meet any future appeals for bonus shares arising from the BT2 and BT3 flotations.

  Foreign Taxation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the UK authorities give to(a) French and (b) Belgian tax authorities in the recovery of tax owed by UK citizens to those authorities. [128606]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are arrangements for the UK to assist the recovery of tax claims of other countries' tax authorities under EC Directive 76/308 on mutual assistance.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advisers, dealing with the working families tax credit system, have been trained specifically to deal with employees who as part of their contract receive bonuses in the course of their employment; in what circumstances such bonuses are included for assessment purposes; and how this applies to military personnel. [128520]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Staff on processing sections and on helplines in the Tax Credits Offices in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are all trained to deal with questions about the income relevant to an application for the Working Families Tax Credit, or to refer such questions to the relevant specialists for advice. Bonuses which are paid as part of normal remuneration, and bonuses which are paid separately from normal remuneration, for example, for periods longer than the normal pay period are included for assessment purposes. This applies equally to bonuses paid to military personnel.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have benefited from the working families tax credit and by how much(a) nationally, (b) in Teesside and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [128510]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of April 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,053,000. 17,100 of these were in Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees unitary authorities. I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 537W, for the number of WFTC awards in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  The national average value of awards current at April 2000 is estimated at £73 per week. For the North East region it is estimated at £71 per week. There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample of awards used for these analyses to provide reliable estimates of average awards at the local authority or constituency level.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Comprehensive Spending Review. [128556]
  95W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A date for the 2000 Spending Review is not yet fixed, but it will be in July.

  Road Fuel
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the revenue lost in each of the last five years due to road vehicles registered and kept in Northern Ireland purchasing their fuel in the Irish Republic. [128612]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 442W.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by his Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if his Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129059]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There is one Treasury PFI contract for the refurbishment of its main building. The answer to the specific questions are:

  (a) Financial close was on 5 May 2000.

  (b) Estimated capital spending by the private sector partner is £118 million.

  (c) No.

  (d) Yes.

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those industry sectors and businesses given(a) full and (b) partial exemption from the climate change levy. [128631]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's aim in designing the climate change levy has been to maximise its environmental effectiveness while safeguarding the competitiveness of UK business.

  The Government have recognised the case for giving special treatment to energy intensive sectors because of their high energy costs and their exposure to international competition. Those eligible energy intensive sectors which enter into agreements to implement all cost-effective energy saving measures and achieve carbon or emissions targets which meet the Government's criteria will qualify for an 80 per cent. discount from the levy rates.

  Sectors which have already agreed indicative energy efficiency targets are Cement; Food and Drink (as represented by the Food and Drink Federation); Glass; Non-ferrous metals; Aluminium; Paper; Chemicals; Foundries; Steel and Ceramics. A number of smaller energy intensive sectors are also involved in negotiations for a sector agreement. Details of the final agreements will be published later in the year.

  The Government have also recognised the unique position of horticulture as an energy intensive sector, exposed to international competition but not eligible for a negotiated agreement and benefiting from special treatment in other EU states. Budget 2000 announced a
  96W
  special package of measures for the horticulture sector: targeted support from the climate change levy energy efficiency fund; extending the list of investments qualifying for enhanced capital allowances to include thermal screens; and a temporary 50 per cent. discount on the levy for a period of up to five years while energy efficiency measures take effect.

  The Government believe, in line with the view expressed by Lord Marshall, that all businesses should have the incentive to save energy at the margin. For this reason there are no total sectoral exemptions from the levy.

  National Insurance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to inform women who have retained the right to pay the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions of the effect this will have on their future benefit entitlement. [128598]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A publicity exercise will be undertaken later this year. It will be aimed at all women who hold a valid election to pay National Insurance contributions at the reduced rate.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if women who have not revoked their right to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions(a) are entitled to receive credits on submission of medical certificates if they are too ill to work and (b) can pay voluntary Class 3 contributions for retirement pension for recent gaps in their national contribution record. [128600]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Women with a valid election to pay National Insurance contributions at the married womens' reduced rate are not entitled to receive National Insurance credits and they cannot pay voluntary Class 3 contributions.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of administering the married couple's allowance per recipient married couple in financial year 1999–2000; what estimate he has made of administering the married couple's allowance per recipient married couple for those born before 6 April 1935 in financial year 2000–01; what estimate he has made of administering the married couple's allowance per recipient married couple for those aged over 75 in financial year 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [128601]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The administration of the married couple's allowance is part of the Inland Revenue's routine work and is not separately identified in running costs.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers he estimates will receive less than the full amount of Children's Tax Credit due to having a taxable income less than the maximum amount of Children's Tax Credit in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [128602]
  97W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Children's Tax Credit (CTC) will benefit about 5 million families and will take out about half a million of them out of tax altogether. CTC is one of a range of measures to focus resources on families with children and reduce child poverty. We have also increased child benefit to record levels and have introduced the Working Families Tax Credit, which has already benefited over 1 million low income families.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of taxpayers who will receive Children's Tax Credit at less than the full rate in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [128603]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Children's Tax Credit (CTC) will benefit about 5 million families. So that it is focused on low to middle income families, if there is higher rate taxpayer in the family, the credit (£442) is gradually withdrawn at the rate of £1 of credit for each £15 of income. CTC is one of a range of measures to focus resources on families with children and reduce child poverty. We have also increased child benefit to record levels and have introduced the Working Families Tax Credit, which has already benefited over 1 million low income families.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of administering the taper element to the Children's Tax Credit in the financial year 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [128604]

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  For those aged 65–74

  Personal allowance

  4,910

  5,220

  5,410

  5,720

  Married couple's allowance3

  13,115

  13,185

  13,305

  25,125

  For those aged 75 and over

  Personal allowance

  5,090

  5,400

  5,600

  5,980

  Married couple's allowance4

  13,155

  13,225

  13,345

  25,195

  Income limit

  15,200

  15,600

  16,200

  16,800

  1Relief available at 15 per cent.

  2Relief available at 10 per cent.

  3This allowance is given if one of the spouses is aged 65–74 for the year in question.

  4This allowance is given if one of the spouses is aged 75 or over for the year in question.

  Note:

  The age-related element of the personal allowance is reduced by £1 for every £2 of income over the income limit until the personal allowance for someone under 65 is reached. The age-related element of the married couple's allowance is reduced in the same way until the allowance for those aged under 65 is reached.

  Sanitary Protection Products
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with retailers on the rates of VAT charged on(a) sanitary protection products and (b) incontinence pads. [128492]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The VAT rate on sanitary protection products is being reduced to 5 per cent. from 1 January 2001. Customs are consulting a number of retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers and their representatives, many of which sell both products, about the implementation of this change. There is also open consultation via the internet.
  98W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The administration of the taper element of the Children's Tax Credit is part of the Inland Revenue's routine work and is not separately identified in running costs.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in the Inland Revenue were employed in administering the(a) married couple's allowance and (b) additional personal allowance in each of the last five years; and how many he expects will be employed in administering the Children's Tax Credit in (i) the current year and (ii) each of the following three years. [128610]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The administration of the married couple's allowance, additional personal allowance and Children's Tax Credit is part of the Inland Revenue's routine work and is not separately identified in running costs. Staff are not exclusively employed on administering any of these allowances.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level of income(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples started paying income tax in financial years (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000. [128359]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An individual's income tax liability depends on the levels of income of different types that he or she receives and the tax reliefs due. A husband and wife are each taxed on their individual income.

  The personal and married couple's allowances available to individuals aged 65 and over in each of those years are set out in the table:

  Tobacco
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total revenue to the Exchequer was from all tobacco products for the last five year period for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the tax take from these sources over the next three years. [R] [128496]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The receipts from all tobacco products for the last five years are published in the National Statistics publication "Financial Statistics".
  99W
  A forecast of receipts from all tobacco products was published in "The Financial Statement and Budget Report" in March 2000.

  Savings (Taxation)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects an agreement to be reached by the Council of Ministers on the substantive content of the Directive on the taxation of savings. [128445]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Council has endorsed the report on the tax package by the ECOFIN Council and agreed on its principles and guidelines. This is an excellent agreement for Britain and for Europe, and it shows once again how the strategy of positive engagement in Europe both protects and indeed enhances the country's national interest. ECOFIN's report of 20 June on the Tax Package has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Environment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual amount of public subsidies which encourage the use of environmentally damaging goods and services, as defined by the 3 report of the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development 1997. [128097]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  At present there is too much uncertainty as to the values appropriate in many specific instances for any meaningful calculation of the total of such implicit subsidies to be possible.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been spent by the European Union on the changeover to the euro to date; and what has been the cost of the information campaign. [128112]
  100W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on changeover planning in the first wave is contained in the Second Outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 March 2000.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if public service agreement targets will be set for each indicator in the publication "Quality of Life Counts". [128099]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The indicators in "Quality of Life Counts" will be an important benchmark against which progress in key areas of sustainable development can be assessed. The Government will publish new Public Service Agreements as part of the outcome of the 2000 Spending Review in July. These PSAs will include targets for improvement in many of the areas contributing to progress against the indicators in "Quality of Life Counts". Some of the wider indicators may be more appropriately related to departmental aims and objectives.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the pre-tax income and (b) the taxable income needed by a married couple aged 65 with full basic state retirement pension and extra pension paid to one person (i) with and (ii) without an individual's tax allowance of dividend income, which would be required to incur an income tax liability of £5,000 in (A) this financial year, (B) 2001–02 and (C) in each of the last four financial years. [128114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An individual's income tax liability depends on the levels of income of different types that he or she receives and the tax reliefs due. A husband and wife are each taxed on their individual income.

  Dividends paid on or after 6 April 1999 are taxed at 10 per cent. below the basic rate limit and carry a tax credit of 10 per cent. which meets that liability. From 1996–97 to that date, they were taxed at the lower rate of 20 per cent., with a 20 per cent. tax credit.

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

Proxy Votes
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to deal with the widespread abuse of proxy voting in elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, we recently issued a circular to all electoral registration officers, returning officers and acting returning officers reminding them of some of the steps that can be taken to ensure the integrity of the proxy vote procedure. Regulations to be made under the Representation of the People Act 2000 will require electoral administrators to confirm to each elector who has appointed a proxy the name of that proxy and the duration of the appointment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the circular that was issued was certainly welcome and may have helped to tighten up the system a little this year. But is it not the case that the amount of electoral abuse—the amount of vote stealing—that is going on is on the increase? This applies to bogus applications for proxy votes; it applies to fiddling postal votes; and it appears to apply to an increasing amount of impersonation that is taking over quite a widespread area, including Bradford, Burnley and Pendle, and in Birmingham. Therefore, as far as concerns proxy votes, would it not be a good idea to revert to the previous system in which proxy vote applications were approved only if the elector was not going to be present within the United Kingdom on polling day?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware that there are a number of outstanding cases about which concern has been expressed and in respect of which police investigations have been undertaken—for example, in Pendle, Burnley and Hackney, to name but a few. However, I am not aware that there is necessarily an increase in fraud or in abuse; indeed, statistics do not indicate that one way or the other. However, I share the noble Lord's concern that vote stealing and fiddling is entirely reprehensible. All parties should share in a common desire to reveal those abuses and prosecute them wherever possible. I take the noble Lord's point. That is why I gave a certain undertaking when we debated the Representation of the People Bill. We shall issue a circular later in the year that will, I believe, introduce a procedure that should, in large measure, prevent vote stealing of the sort described by the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord accede to the suggestion that proxy votes should
1276
be accorded only to those who are without the United Kingdom? I declare an interest, although it is not a registerable one. My wife is blind, and I have a proxy vote for her.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is for precisely those reasons that proxy votes exist. When the recent working party on electoral procedures met, it was not convinced that arrangements should he further liberalised. The working party understood and fully acknowledged the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, and others, in this Chamber. I believe that the procedures we have put in place should begin to tackle any of those outstanding abuses. However, I take the point that proxy votes should be used as a last resort only, especially as we are now making it much easier for people to obtain postal votes on demand.
Lord Laird: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept that there are some people in Northern Ireland with particular expertise in voting on behalf of other people? Would the noble Lord be prepared to make Northern Ireland a special case and consider the concept of registering on a list the date of birth of the voter which then has to be related back by the person concerned at the time of voting? Would it also be possible to allow the presiding officer to challenge the possible proxy voter, instead of requiring a party member to do so? Further, could such measures be implemented in time for the next general election?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know that interesting things happen in elections in Northern Ireland. But the procedures that will he put in place should enable returning officers, acting returning officers, and so on, to be more challenging in their approach to proxy voters where they think that there may be fraud or abuse. I understand that returning officers welcomed the circular that was issued before the recent local elections and that they made widespread use of it. We must pursue those aims. There is great merit in enabling people to use proxy votes in the very circumstances where it is extremely difficult for them to get the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while opportunities for abuse of the system should be eliminated, does not the Minister agree that voting by proxy is important for members of the Armed Forces and for others in occupations that take them abroad or require them to move at very short notice? Does the noble Lord also agree that early registration—that is, well before an election—is advisable?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the latter observation of the noble Lord. I share his commitment to the value of the proxy vote for people who are in business or for those who are serving in the Armed Forces, and so on. That is why the system

1277
has been retained. However, like the noble Lord, I am concerned that we should do all that we can to minimise abuse of the proxy voting system.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as my noble friend is concerned that people who are legitimately working abroad should be able to have a proxy vote, will he take steps to review legislation for which he is responsible in this House that might remove such a right to vote from people who are currently working in European Union institutions and who might well be doing so for a period exceeding 10 years?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord has made. In the past he has made that point publicly and privately. We are open to suggestions and compromise on that issue. The noble Lord is actively pursuing such a compromise, on which I congratulate him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if abuse were to remain constant while turn-out declines, the likelihood that abuse will alter the result of an election must increase?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can only say "yes".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister recall that I live in the constituency of Glasgow Govan? Does he share my doubts that a communication informing people that it is illegal to misuse proxy or postal voting will not do much to change the situation because they already know that it is illegal and that is why they are misusing these votes in an underhand way? Does not the Minister think that firmer steps will need to be taken to prevent the abuse of proxy and postal voting? I refer to the experiment to extend postal and proxy voting to everyone. Is there evidence that this abuse has increased in those places where the experiment was conducted last May?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a number of questions. I remind the noble Lord that we are not extending proxy voting. We are trying to extend and provide a wider facility for postal voting. That has been broadly welcomed. I think that the noble Lord accepts that there has been increased turn-out in those areas where it has been made easier for people to obtain a postal vote or where there has been universal postal voting. I believe that the letter in regard to the regulations that we shall introduce later in the year will greatly assist people. Many of the allegations with regard to proxy voting concern those cases where people have turned up at the polling station expecting to exercise a proxy vote on someone's behalf but have discovered that their vote has been "stolen". I know that the noble Lord agrees that those are reprehensible circumstances. To put proxy voters, or those who will use a proxy vote, on notice puts in place a careful check.

Cricket in Schools
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to promote cricket in English schools.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am pleased to report that participation in cricket in our schools is increasing. Sport England announced that in the past five years cricket was the only game to have achieved this. The English Cricket Board has indicated that over the past year regular participation in cricket in secondary schools increased by 10 per cent to about 84 per cent of schools, and in primary schools there was an increase in participation of 7 per cent to around 70 per cent of schools. Furthermore—this is important—the ECB showed that girls' participation had increased by 26 per cent. The ECB is launching a school education programme in September.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his knowledgeable reply. The English Cricket Board report is positive and encouraging. Does the Minister agree that the West Indies and England team deserve congratulations on their spectacular performance last week? However, my real concern is about cricket in inner cities. Does the Minister think that young people in inner city schools have their cricketing potential sufficiently exploited? Do many of them later play for their county or their country?
Lord Bach: My Lords, not only does the English side and its brave West Indian opponents deserve congratulations, but so does my noble friend on her sense of timing in tabling this Question today. I believe that most of us in the House who were not lucky enough to be present at Lord's were either glued to our television or radio sets to follow a Test Match, the pure thrill and excitement of which must have achieved a huge amount of progress for cricket at all levels in this country. As regards the situation in the inner cities, the Spaces for Sport and Arts Programme is aimed at inner cities and the impoverished areas of our country. It seeks to improve sports and arts facilities in primary schools in deprived areas for use by children within and beyond school hours and by the community outside school hours. Childcare will be provided. Some £75 million worth of new money from the capital modernisation fund and £75 million from the lottery have been allocated to pay for it.
As regards older children, the noble Baroness may be aware that the Lords Taverners run an inner cities tournament for children who do not normally have a chance to participate in higher level cricket competitions. This splendid tournament has been running for some years and involves 16 cities. There are strict criteria to ensure that elite schoolchildren are not invited to participate. Individuals must not have played in a county board side and must be under the

1279
age of 16 the previous September. The Lords Taverners are much to be congratulated on their scheme. Such schemes are very much to be encouraged but there is still much to be done.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said on this subject. Is he satisfied that the strong feeling that ran through the educational system against competitive sport of any kind is a thing of the past?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am always loath to take issue with the noble Baroness. However, I do not accept that the anti-competitive spirit, as she calls it, ran through all our educational establishments. The Government believe that competition in sport and in schools is an excellent thing for the individual and for the community.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, while the promotion of kwik cricket, and now inter cricket, has done an enormous amount to promote the game among young boys and girls, is it not the case that the lack of PE teachers who can teach cricket and the lack of time devoted to PE is curbing substantially the promotion of cricket in primary schools? How many schools have applied for sports college status, such as the school in Coventry which is now a cricket team school of sporting excellence? This has done an enormous amount to encourage children who can play sport at a high level.
Lord Bach: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's last question first, 67 specialist sport schools will be up and running by September of this year. The aim is to have 110 by 2003. So far as concerns his other questions, there are no shortages at all of PE specialists training to become teachers in secondary schools. However, so far as concerns primary school teachers, there have been some difficulties and we are working extremely hard to ensure that there are PE specialists in primary schools. It is worth noting that many more primary schools now involve themselves in cricket— largely because of kwik cricket—than was the case a few years ago.
Lord Addington: My Lords, would it not be useful if relevant sport qualifications were taken into account on teachers' applications for performance related pay if they were prepared to use their qualifications for the improvement of schools as a whole? If not, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to repair the damage that has been done to our traditional school base of teachers helping after hours, which has been driven out by the amount of time and red tape involved?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is very interesting. I should like to go away and consider the matter and let him know.
Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth: My Lords, I thank the House for congratulating the England team on its
1280
fine win on Saturday. I am sure the team will be pleased to receive your Lordships' congratulations. Is the Minister aware that, in comparison with successful sporting nations such as France and Germany—which spend more than £5 and £3 per head of population on sport respectively—sadly, the United Kingdom lags far behind, spending only 88p. Do the Government realise that in the case of cricket, which is not a rich sport, any modest increase in public expenditure would have a tremendously positive impact out of all proportion to the money spent?
Lord Bach: My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord, perhaps I may congratulate him and his board on a superb cricket report of the past year and on the undoubted progress that is being made. In that report, the ECB talks favourably of relations with the Government, with Ministers and with schools. Of course we wish to put much more into sport than we do at present. The noble Lord will know better than most that in February this year Sport England confirmed an Exchequer grant of just short of £1 million over the next four years, which is in addition to the much larger sum of £7 million a year that the ECB, under his leadership, and the counties spend between them on the development of cricket.

Zimbabwe: Elections
2.53 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the conditions under which electoral observers worked in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Slate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the observers were generally warmly welcomed wherever they went in Zimbabwe. They had wide-ranging contacts with the political parties, the local authorities, civil society groups and the Zimbabwe Government. We agree with the assessment made by Pierre Schori, the head of the EU observer mission, that a deliberate attempt was made by the authorities to reduce the effectiveness of both the international observers and the domestic monitors through a series of administrative obstructions. The observers were, however, able to travel freely around the country and did a very good job in reporting on the electoral process in Zimbabwe. Their final reports will be placed in the Library of the House when they are available.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the fact that polling day itself was relatively well conducted after the mayhem leading up to it is a tribute to the presence of the international observers, and underscores their importance? As the final reports of both the Commonwealth mission and the EU mission are due to be published this week and clearly will contain reference to some of the matters that the

1281
Minister has just expressed to the House, will she undertake to ensure that any future international collaboration with Zimbabwe on the economic front will be predicated on a return to the rule of law and, in particular, observance by its government of decisions of the courts?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in the tribute that he rightly paid to the observers. They made a significant difference and we should all be grateful to them for that. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government continue to feel passionately about the issue of the maintenance of the rule of law. We share with our partners the need to keep that clearly in mind in terms of assessing the development of Zimbabwe and how matters should proceed from now on.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the outcome of the elections in Zimbabwe is a tribute also to the courage of the ordinary voters of that country, many of whom defied intimidation and threats in order to cast their votes in a way which was a tribute to democracy? In view of the extreme importance of the presidential elections in two years' time, will it be possible to work out in advance that electoral monitors will be welcomed and will be allowed to view the election throughout the whole of the country in a way that was not wholly achieved on this occasion, as my noble friend said?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I join wholeheartedly in the tribute that the noble Baroness paid to the people of Zimbabwe. They demonstrated enormous courage in voting in the numbers that they did. It is also a tribute to the international community which gave them the courage to do so; it supported them and enabled them to feel that the world was watching and did not turn away. Electoral monitors obviously played an enormous part. We must look very carefully at what happens in the next two years. If matters do not improve—we passionately hope that they will—everything that the noble Baroness said must be looked at very thoroughly. We shall consider whether the use of monitors should be advocated and when they should go in, but we must wait to see how matters develop.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the nightmare in Zimbabwe is far from over? The situation there—far from being one where we can wait and see—has been described by responsible commentators as "explosive". It is beginning to poison the whole of southern Africa, with investment drying up and a major crisis emerging. Can the noble Baroness reassure the House that everything possible is being done to sew together a responsible alliance of African leaders, which can bring pressure on Mugabe to come to his senses—and, indeed, to hasten his departure—so that the courageous MDC, which did very well in the elections, can have a chance to pursue democracy in Zimbabwe before it collapses completely?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, let me say straightaway that the noble Lord is right: the challenges which lie ahead for Zimbabwe are by no means over. However, we need to respect the voice of the people of Zimbabwe—in the end, it is they who must choose who will lead them—and whether Mr Mugabe goes or stays will depend very much on his behaviour and how it is received by the people of that country. We continue to talk with our African partners about the acute situation in Zimbabwe. We should draw some comfort from what the African leaders are doing and from the conversations they are having. We welcome the initiative started by Mr Mbeki in South Africa. The government there have appointed a team of Ministers to work with their Zimbabwean counterparts in pursuit of economic recovery and stability in the region. Our African partners take this issue very seriously—and rightly so.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the report in the newspapers that the EU Commission, in reporting the elections, felt that the Commonwealth had been rather inadequate in its response to the abuse which occurred?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have not seen that report. However, we were warmed by the amount of support we received across the board for those initiatives and in connection with the anxieties that we were expressing. There was international agreement in that regard. I should not like to voice a criticism of the efforts made by the Commonwealth as a whole, which were significant.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, if it was right for the people of Zimbabwe to have their choice of leader accepted, which choice was made in a broadly fiddled election, why was it wrong for the people of Austria not to be allowed their choice of leader in a free and fair election?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I have said before from this Dispatch Box, Her Majesty's Government do not choose which leaders are elected or appointed by any given country. Austria chose its leaders; Austria will abide by the consequences of that.

The North East: Regional Policies
3 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they feel that present regional policies are benefiting the northern region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are committed to promoting the interests of all the

1283
regions, including the North. Establishment of the regional development agencies is already helping to deliver that commitment. In its first year, ONE NorthEast announced projects which will create and safeguard 11,000 jobs with a capital expenditure of some £340 million. Over the next three years, it will invest more than £100 million, levering in an additional £400 million of private, public and European funds.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, despite everything that has been done by the Government for the northern region, there is little sign of improvement in the area itself? I have to say to my noble friend that in this Labour heartland there is still considerable concern about the position. For example, is he aware that unemployment in the region remains as high as ever? Can he confirm reports that this month's spending review is to include millions of pounds for other regions? Will the North receive special consideration in view of the fact that all the indicators show that it is the worst hit of all the regions in the country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that in certain respects the northern region has not fully shared the prosperity of the rest of the country in terms of both employment and standard of living. That is one of the reasons that we are engaged in an active regional policy in support of the RDAs, the local authorities and local business in the northern region. My noble friend would not expect me to anticipate the spending review. It is a matter for the Chancellor, who I am sure is aware of the problems of the North East.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, is it not self-evident that the beneficial effects of regional policy in the North are being largely wiped out by the adverse effects of the exchange rate? Is it not also self-evident that a major adjustment is needed? The present misalignment may be temporary, but surely the Government recognise that the misalignment is gross and that it is having damaging effects on employment, particularly in manufacturing industry in the North. One has only to consider the latest report about Nissan and its future intentions. Does my noble friend agree that it is really time that the Chancellor addressed himself to this issue and took those actions which are available to him to nudge downwards the exchange rate of the pound?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for one surreal moment I thought that my noble friend was advocating our joining the euro! It is true—there has been news this morning—that the high dependence of the northern region on manufacturing compared with certain other regions means that the exchange rate has a particularly acute effect. However, we believe that the measures we are taking, both nationally and in relation to the northern region, will attract and retain inward investment and ensure that we make best use of the skills, facilities and the attitude to work which are clearly there in the northern region and which should
1284
allow it to have a competitive advantage whatever the exchange rate. The rest of my noble friend's question is a matter for the Chancellor. I do not think that I can easily add to what he has already said on that subject.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is not industry in the North East asking about the Government's present policy on the euro? It is seeking clarification on the issue. Can the noble Lord say to which Ministers industrialists in the North, and indeed elsewhere, should listen regarding policy on the euro?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to have to repeat yet again from the Dispatch Box, as have many of my colleagues, that our policy on the euro remains as it was announced by the Chancellor in the autumn of 1997—we recognise that when the criteria are met there is a case in principle for joining the euro. Decisions on that will await a recommendation from the Chancellor at a later stage. I do not think that the problems of the North East, raised by my noble friend Lord Dormand are resolved by the Opposition, or anyone else, looking at the minutiae of euro policy. This is a structural policy—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, claimed that there were textual differences between one Minister and another. The point I am making is that the policy is clear, always has been clear and remains clear. The issue addressed by my noble friend Lord Dormand was the need for structural measures to improve the relative competitiveness of the North East within this economy.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Morris of Castle Morris be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time.
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is central to the Government's purpose of reducing crime and improving the protection of the public. It will help

1285
to create a criminal justice system that fights crime more effectively through the use of a tough and targeted approach to offending in the community as well as in custody. It illustrates our determination to modernise the criminal justice system from end to end with the establishment of a national probation service for England and Wales and the new children and family court advisory and support service.
For too long, community sentences have been regarded by offenders, courts and public alike as a soft and ineffective option. That is why the proposals in the Bill to strengthen the enforcement of community sentences are so important. We need to improve public confidence in the value of community sentences as integral parts of an effective response to crime.
As well as promoting a tough, targeted and effective approach to crime, a number of measures in the Bill focus on improving public protection, particularly for some of the most vulnerable in society such as children. In addition to the introduction of an integrated system for preventing unsuitable people, such as sex offenders, from working with children, the Bill also excludes all sex offenders convicted of offences subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 from the home detention curfew programme.
The Government have rightly focused many of their efforts to date on tackling crime committed by young people. The Bill builds on earlier youth justice reforms. It is absolutely essential that criminal and anti-social behaviour committed by young people is addressed firmly, effectively and, above all, early to divert them from a lifetime of crime. Measures in the Bill to improve parenting orders, the final warning scheme and to compel parents to address their children's truanting are all important parts of a wider youth justice and social exclusion strategy. We will not give up on these young people.
In developing all of these policies, we have been mindful of the need to balance the rights of those who suffer the effects of crime with those who commit them.
I should now like to outline some of the main themes and measures of the Bill. The need to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system is very much at the heart of this Bill. The establishment of an effective and focused probation service is central to this Government's determination to modernise the criminal justice system and to improve its ability to reduce crime through a range of measures. These include the consistent use of an evidence-based "what works" approach; more effective joint working; the development of local strategies to address local crime reduction priorities; and the efficient use of resources to provide the public with better value for money.
The Probation Service does an incredibly important job. Its staff take a dedicated and professional approach to this vital work and I trust that this House will join me in paying tribute to them. A prime example of the professionalism that characterises the Probation Service is the way in which the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP) commissioned its own
1286
research into the enforcement of community sentences. This research found that, for cases in March 1999, enforcement rates as a whole were simply not good enough, with the key indicator showing that only 44 per cent of those who broke the terms of their supervision were actually being breached.
ACOP has been working in close co-operation with the Home Office to improve enforcement rates. By April of this year, a second audit found that for cases dealt with in September 1999, 62 per cent of those who broke their orders or licences were breached. This is a welcome and significant improvement, but enforcement rates are still too low: the key performance indicator target is 90 per cent.
The restructuring of the Probation Service will improve both its efficiency and focus and will enable it to provide a better and more consistent service. This will be achieved through the establishment of the national probation service for England and Wales. This unified and centrally-driven service will comprise 42 local areas, matching police force boundaries. As well as improving its overall efficiency, this restructuring will enable the service to build on the best of past experience and to concentrate more effectively on its core tasks: the enforcement of sentences and public protection.
The restructuring will promote close working with police and other criminal justice agencies. New local boards will be more representative and will have a key role to play in working with others to develop effective local approaches to crime reduction.
The new service will also develop, adopt and disseminate evidence-based approaches to community punishment and public protection. At the moment, the Probation Service is a fragmented organisation with only limited accountability to central government and its local communities. This new structure will allow greater consistency and should, over time, force up standards. The new boards will be fully accountable for service delivery in their areas.
As a part of this restructuring, the aims of the national probation service will be clearly identified as: protecting the public; reducing reoffending; and the proper punishment of offenders in the community.
In order further to clarify the aim and focus of the Probation Service, the Bill will also rename probation, community service, and combination orders as, respectively, community rehabilitation, community punishment, and community punishment and rehabilitation orders. Although I understand the concerns that some may have about renaming orders, I firmly believe that the new names more accurately reflect and describe the purpose of these community sentences. I also believe that the new names are more understandable to a wider public. That can only improve confidence in community sentencing.
I am pleased that these proposals for the national probation service were largely welcomed by all sides in another place and I look forward to discussing them in more detail in Committee.

1287
As I mentioned earlier, the more effective enforcement of community sentences is a key aim of the Bill and, although great strides have been made recently to improve performance, more needs to be done if community sentences are to be regarded as truly effective and credible alternatives to custody.
It is absolutely essential to have timely and effective enforcement of community sentences. There should be no doubts about the consequences of non-compliance. That is why, under the new regime, where an offender over 18 is not immediately returned to court after the first unacceptable failure to comply with an order, there will be a duty on the Probation Service to issue a warning and then return him to court on the second unacceptable failure within any 12-month period, or within six months for a curfew order. If the offender is found to be in breach, other than in exceptional circumstances, he will be sentenced to up to three months' imprisonment, or longer if the original offence would have merited a longer term of imprisonment. This Bill sends a clear message that community sentences are not a soft option.
The establishment of the children and family court advisory and support service (CAFCASS) is designed to improve the service provided to children and families involved in family court proceedings. This new service will focus on the needs of children and families going through the court system by taking on the functions currently carried out by the Probation Service's family court welfare services, the guardian ad litem and the reporting officer service, and work with children undertaken by the office of the Official Solicitor.
The aim of this new service will be to put children first and to offer a fast, flexible and consistent service. The establishment of this separate service will also enable the new national probation service to concentrate on its core task of law enforcement.
I should like briefly to mention two other measures in the Bill which will improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The first is the proposal to enable the police to have bulk access to driver licensing records for the purposes of road traffic enforcement. This is a relatively small measure, but it will significantly enhance the ability of police officers to carry out roadside checks to increase the speed at which they will be able to process accident and traffic offences. This will also result in increased convenience to the public, as in the vast majority of cases, motorists will no longer have to produce their driving licence at a police station as checks will be carried out on the spot. It will also offer the benefit of freeing up police resources that could be usefully deployed elsewhere.
Another such measure, but this time in a custodial context, is the proposal to abolish the separate sentence of detention in a young offender institution (DYOI) for 18 to 20 year-olds. I know that concerns have been expressed about this proposal, but I firmly believe that this separate sentence has become anachronistic and that its removal will enable the Prison Service to address more effectively the needs of younger and more vulnerable prisoners. The Prison
1288
Service will build on work carried out so far as to how the abolition of the sentence of DYOI can best be implemented. The aim will be to develop regimes for young adult offenders, not only for those in the 18 to 20 age group, but also for those in their early 20s.
Although post abolition those 18 to 20 year-olds given a custodial sentence will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, this does not mean that they will be sent as a matter of course to what are currently adult prison establishments. Young offender institutions will continue to exist physically and will continue to provide constructive regimes specifically developed for younger offenders. Far from abandoning the 18 to 20 year-olds to fend for themselves, we have a positive commitment to develop programmes which better prepare them for release.
The abolition of the separate sentence also brings the important benefit of enabling young people to be located closer to home than they are at present, thus improving the maintenance of vital family ties and aiding eventual resettlement. A small, segregated estate of some 6,500 18 to 20 year-olds inevitably places limitations on the extent to which the Prison Service can pursue its aim of locating prisoners closer to home. This is particularly true for the 300 or so female young offenders held in the small women's estate.
As well as helping to ensure tougher and more consistent enforcement of community sentences, the Bill will also enable the Probation Service, the police and others to harness new and existing technologies in their efforts to reduce crime.
The proposals to introduce mandatory drug testing on charge in the police station, pre-sentence, as part of a community sentence, and on release from prison, represent an important step in our efforts to combat drug-related crime. When examining these proposals, it is essential to bear in mind the scale of the problem we are attempting to address and how they fit into the Government's wider drugs strategy.
A drug testing of arrestees research programme found that more than three out of five people arrested tested positive for an illegal drug. In some places the total was almost four out of five, with in some areas one-third testing positive for heroin and more than a quarter for cocaine. We know that between 50,000 and 60,000 problem drug misusers are arrested and prosecuted every year. Those in this group alone may each commit 150 crimes a year—roughly 7.5 million offences. This is the terrible scale and cost of drug-fuelled crime, and this is why as part of our wider strategy to combat drug misuse we are introducing drug testing at various stages of the criminal justice system.
These measures will help to identify drug-misusing offenders who need treatment, to monitor their progress and to deter further drug misuse. Drug testing will complement other programmes such as the drug treatment and testing order, which has been successfully piloted in three sites and is to be rolled out nationally from October; £60 million will be made

1289
available over the next two years to support the introduction of the order, which includes funding for the related treatment costs.
We are also investing £20 million over three years to ensure the spread of drug arrest referral schemes. Initial take-up indicates that 90 per cent of all custody suites in England and Wales will have arrest referral schemes by the end of the year.
Around £100 million has been earmarked from 1999–2002 to tackle drug misuse among prisoners. This includes the establishment of a basic treatment service in every prison and the creation of more than 50 rehabilitation programmes to which prisoners requiring more intensive interventions can be referred.
We are aware, however, that the new resources are exposing a shortage of capacity in drug treatment services. The Government are addressing this problem, and a national recruitment campaign for drug workers, funded by the confiscated assets fund, will result in nearly 700 drug workers being recruited and trained by next April. In addition, the Home Secretary announced on 8th June that consideration is being given to developing a new national treatment agency to oversee a pooled national treatment budget, bringing together money currently being spent on drug misuse treatment by the Department of Health and the Home Office.
The Government have listened carefully to concerns expressed about the application of these new drug-testing measures. They will be piloted and, together with all the relevant agencies, we shall be able to gauge their effectiveness and ensure that the right balance is struck between individual civil liberties and the right of other individuals and communities to be protected from drug-related crime.
As with drug testing, electronic monitoring is another technology that has already proven its worth in the fight against crime, with a successful completion rate of 90 per cent. Electronic monitoring is a valuable tool to improve public protection. As well as creating an exclusion order which will require an offender to stay away from certain places at certain times, and which could be particularly useful in cases of domestic violence and stalking, the Bill will allow for electronic monitoring of a range of community sentences and electronic monitoring of conditions of release on licence. These new uses of electronic monitoring will make compliance with community sentences far easier to monitor.
I should like to make it clear that these measures are directed solely at improving public protection. They do not make any prisoner eligible for release earlier than at present, nor do they change the basis on which the release decisions are made. Early release decisions will always involve careful and thorough risk assessment. It is absolute nonsense to criticise the electronic monitoring of people who are released from prison, where the only alternative is for them to be released without the added protection provided by electronic monitoring.
1290
I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed about the early release of serious sex offenders. Perhaps I may make the Government's position absolutely clear: we are amending the Bill to exclude all prisoners convicted of offences subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 from the current home detention curfew scheme. It is essential that all necessary steps are taken to protect the public, but we should not lose sight of the fact that with a 94 per cent completion rate, HDC has been a great success and has made an important contribution to the safe resettlement of many offenders.
The Government are totally committed to improving public protection, particularly the protection of children from those who may wish to harm them. The Bill builds on the Protection of Children Act 1999 to create an integrated system for preventing unsui
table people, such as sex offenders, from working with children. This system will be backed up with a new criminal offence of applying for, or accepting, work with children while banned. In developing these proposals, once again we have been mindful of the need to balance the rights of individual civil liberties with the rights of others to be protected from abuse. As part of these proposals, a new review process for all of those banned is to be introduced.
Strengthening the protection of children from those who would wish to exploit them is at the heart of the Government's policy. That is why we set up the review of sex offences, which had increasing the protection of children as its central task. That review was not asked to look at the offences relating to pornography, or at the growth of the Internet as a medium for child pornography. I know that we all find this extremely worrying and we are concerned about the increase in the number of offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is vital that the courts have the powers to deal appropriately with this vile trade which starts with child abuse.
That is why the Government welcomed proposals by the Opposition in another place to increase the penalties for various offences relating to child pornography. We need to ensure that the penalties available reflect the seriousness with which society regards these sorts of abhorrent offences.
I shall therefore be tabling amendments in Committee to increase the maximum penalty for simple possession of indecent images of children under 16 from six months' imprisonment, or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding five years' imprisonment, or a fine, or both.
While possession itself is a serious crime, there can be no doubt that taking, making, distributing, showing and possession with a view to distribution are even more grave offences. To this effect, the Government will table amendments in Committee to increase the maximum sentence for these crimes from three years, or a fine, or both, to 10 years, or a fine, or both.
The Bill also builds on the range of youth justice reforms introduced by the Government over the past few years. As I mentioned earlier, it is vital to catch

1291
young offenders early to divert them from a life of crime. We have learnt from the use of a number of these measures and are keen to improve them.
Experience has shown that the effect of a reprimand or final warning can be significantly enhanced by delivering it as part of a restorative justice process involving the young offender, his or her parents and, where appropriate, the victim. We propose to remove the existing requirement for reprimands and final warnings to be delivered in a police station, in order to introduce greater flexibility, allowing reprimands and warnings to be given in the most appropriate and accessible locations instead.
Parenting orders provide an important new means of supporting parents in exercising proper responsibility for their children's behaviour—particularly where the child or young person has been convicted of an offence or where he or she is not attending school regularly. The Bill will extend the range of persons able to serve as a responsible officer under a parenting order to include local education authority staff working outside youth offending teams.
The Bill also increases the penalty for parents who fail to ensure that their child attends school regularly, raising the penalty to a fine of up to £2,500 with the risk of imprisonment for up to three months. This proposal is the result of consultation undertaken by the DfEE last year through the document Tackling Truancy Together. Responses to the consultation were largely supportive of the proposal to increase the penalty for school attendance offences.
As this measure attracted a degree of concern in another place, I should like to state clearly that the purpose is not to imprison parents who are already struggling, but it resolutely is about challenging the culture which tolerates the absence of children from school, and it reflects the serious impact that truancy can have on a child's future prospects in life. At the moment, the fine (level 3 on the standard scale; maximum £1,000) is in the same bracket as non-possession of a TV licence or vehicle road licence. That cannot be right.
The purpose of this measure is to compel parents to attend court or risk arrest, as courts will have the power to issue a warrant. Currently, 80 per cent of parents summonsed under school attendance offences fail to attend trial. If parents are required to attend courts, magistrates will have the opportunity to reinforce the seriousness of the offence. They will also be able to consider passing alternative sentences, such as community service orders and the new parenting orders. This measure will reinforce the message that every child has the right to education and every parent has the duty to ensure that his or her child is educated.
One last measure in the Bill that I should like to mention is the proposal that sentencing courts should be able to set the tariff in cases where young offenders under the age of 18 are sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure as a result of committing murder. This measure brings our law into line with a key aspect of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables.
1292
Taken together, the measures in this Bill will modernise the criminal justice system to make it more effective in reducing crime and improving public protection. It will create a more flexible criminal justice system that can deal with each offender in the most appropriate way, be it in the community, in custody or a combination of both. These proposals help to pave the way for seamless sentencing—a principle that is to be taken forward through the recently announced sentencing review.
At the heart of this Bill is the clear message that we are getting even tougher on crime by providing the Probation Service, the police and others with the tools needed to reduce crime and improve public protection, which is something that we should all support.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will assist me on a small matter. To what extent has there been consultation with the current Lord Chief Justice on Clause 48? To what extent has there been consultation generally with Lord Justice Rose, particularly having regard to the very important liaison committee over which he presides? In relation to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, the Minister placed at the forefront of his speech the support of the Lord Chief Justice. Does the Minister have that support for Clause 48?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his question. Obviously, discussions with the Lord Chief Justice on this particular clause continue. I am aware of some of the proper concerns of the noble and learned Lord about that provision, which I entirely understand. That is a view to which members of the judiciary have long held. However, we believe that when looking at breaches, the flouting of orders of the court should be regarded as a serious matter. I understand the issue relating to judicial discretion, but clearly this is something that we can debate at greater length during the course of the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can I take it that there was no consultation with Lord Justice Rose?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot advise the noble and learned Lord whether or not there was specific consultation with Lord Justice Rose, but I shall happily look into the matter. I am aware that there are ongoing discussions. The Lord Chief Justice is involved in correspondence with, and makes his views well known to, the Home Office.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, that exchange was worth waiting for, and I look forward to hearing the answer either from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, or the Attorney-General at a later stage.

1293
I intend to confine my speech to Parts I and III of the Bill, which deal with the reorganisation of the Probation Service and changes in community sentences and their enforcement. The Probation Service plays a crucial part in the operation of the criminal justice system. It is often overshadowed by the police and the Prison Service and it is easy to underestimate its significance. In 1998, which is the most recent year for which statistics are available, nearly 150,000 offenders in England and Wales were sentenced to non-custodial penalties, excluding fines. We are talking in the main about community penalties. That is one-and-a-half times more than the total number sentenced to custody.
In thinking about the work of the Probation Service, to the total number of people serving community sentences at any one time must be added offenders who are subject to other categories of supervision, including parole and other forms of post-release supervision. Supervision apart, probation officers also have important responsibilities for preparing pre-sentence reports so that the court may pass a proportionate sentence, which is an aspect to which I shall return at the end of my remarks, and release plans for prisoners who are to be released from custody.
We can all agree that, regrettably, in recent years the status of the Probation Service has not been valued by successive governments as highly as it deserves. In that context I welcome the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to the work of the service. I am sure his words will be both noted and appreciated. But in the nature of things it is easier to highlight those who are subject to community penalties and reoffend when on probation than it is the larger number who complete their sentences successfully.
The Government's response to this situation since 1997 has been twofold: managerial and punitive. In Part I of the Bill the present organisational structure, which is a service based on 54 areas, each answerable to a probation committee largely made up of local magistrates, is to be replaced by a unified national probation service for England and Wales which is to be directly accountable to the Home Secretary. The service will have a structure based on 42 local areas; a board composed of local people and boundaries coterminous with the police and Crown Prosecution Service. Whether the new nationalised service will lead to more efficiency in operation and greater protection for the public to compensate for its loss of independence from central direction, and its answerability to local magistrates, remains to be seen. But at least the reorganisation has been the subject of thorough discussion with the service over a lengthy period of time, and with a wider audience; I refer, for example, to the consultation document published in 1998, responses to which have been considered.
The same cannot be said of the highly objectionable proposal contained in Clause 48, subsection (4), which requires a magistrates' court, unless there are exceptional circumstances, to impose a custodial sentence of up to three months on an offender aged 18
1294
or above if he is found to be in breach of a specified community order, typically a probation order or community service order. Those orders are to be renamed in the Bill, I believe unnecessarily, as a gesture to tough-on-crime policies, but the nature of the community penalties themselves will remain essentially the same.
The presumption of imprisonment, as it is called, uniquely combines two features which in recent years and months have been subjected to the strongest criticism in this House. The first is mandatory sentences of imprisonment, whereby the punishment is prescribed by law irrespective of the degree of culpability of the offender and the consequences of what he or she has done. That is fundamentally wrong. For years we had only one mandatory sentence: the mandatory sentence for murder. Then, in recent years, under both governments I regret to say, the list has lengthened. Mandatory sentencing takes away the discretion of the court other than in genuinely exceptional circumstances. We have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, to thank for that qualification. This is well-trod ground. The Government must have been well aware of what they were stepping out on.
In the Crime (Sentences) Act, which became law just after the 1997 election, but was introduced in Parliament prior to that election, three different categories of mandatory sentences were introduced. It was hoped that the third and largest category—mandatory sentence for repeat burglars—would never be implemented, but I fear that it has been.
The second objectionable feature to the presumption of imprisonment is that only last week we debated in this House another populist-inspired initiative: the withdrawal or reduction of social security benefits if a breach of a community penalty was alleged, but not proved. That proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by your Lordships in a Division on Report. Both proposals—loss of benefit and presumption of imprisonment—are misconceived. It would be best if they were abandoned. If that is too much to hope, I would ask the Attorney-General to explain the relationship between the two separate penalties. They have come from quite different quarters—different Bills and different sponsoring departments.
In relation to the mandatory penalty in Clause 48, for that is what it is, although there is an exceptional circumstances clause, there would have been no hope of getting it through Parliament without that provision. Let us consider the likely practical implications. The Home Office estimates that 25,000 people a year could be imprisoned for breach under these provisions at an additional cost to the Prison Service of £85 million in the first year, which includes £15 million capital cost and £70 million a year thereafter. Even those calculations, high as they are, are based on an absurd assumption of a 50 per cent deterrence factor for the measure. It is assumed that half the people who now fail to comply with an order would be so deterred by the threat of automatic imprisonment for a breach that they would comply.

1295
That flies in the face of all available evidence and research which has found that changes in sentencing have little deterrent effect, particularly on the type of offender who is sentenced to a community penalty.
We are not talking here about people who consider the consequences of their acts; the reality is the opposite. The idea that there could be a 50 per cent deterrence factor is indeed absurd. That description comes not from me, but from the 41 organisations which make up the Penal Affairs Consortium. It includes not only representatives of the penal reform groups, but also of the statutory services. It must be more realistic to assume that an additional 50,000 people annually will be imprisoned should these provisions become law.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Bill comes before your Lordships' House on a day when the Prime Minister is hosting a crime convention, now downgraded as a seminar, in Downing Street. Its purpose is clear: what to do about crime and the level of violence in inner cities. I am delighted that he has stepped back from well-reported views which include police escorting trouble makers to the cash machines to pay their fines. Perhaps I may say how delighted I am to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. We missed him.
Last week, in a debate on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, I said that it was difficult to see what could have possessed a government so strongly committed to crime reduction to introduce a measure which would inevitably increase crime. It is equally difficult to understand what could have made a government so committed to tackling social exclusion bring forward a measure which will further worsen the exclusion from society of many vulnerable people.
Today's Bill is no exception. It is a mixed bag. It contains some useful reforms which will bring about a more unified and consistent probation service, reduce the risk of unsuitable people entering the childcare profession and increase the scope for courts and the Parole Board to make imaginative use of electronic tagging requirements.
However, some other elements of the Bill, which appear to have been designed to show how tough the Government are in a pre-election period, will further overcrowd the prisons while doing nothing to reduce crime. The worst of these provisions is the draconian requirement in Clause 48 for courts to gaol everyone who breaches a community sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, spoke at length about the Probation Service. The reorganisation of the Probation Service into a new national probation service for England and Wales is broadly welcome. At present, with the service fragmented into 54 separate and independent areas and no national leader, it is difficult to ensure consistency of practice across England and Wales. Establishing a national service will make it easier to spread effective practice in
1296
supervising offenders nation-wide. A national director will be in a better position to act as a public advocate for the service and to press the case with government for more resources for the service. This will bring the Probation Service's area boundaries into line with those of the police and the CPS and will assist inter-agency work.
However, we on this side of the House have one principal concern about this reorganisation: it is that the Government have not achieved the right balance between national and local accountability. In particular, it cannot be right that the Home Secretary should appoint not only chief probation officers but also chairs of local probation boards. If we are to find people of high calibre to chair and serve on probation boards, they will want to know that the boards are not simply puppets of central government and that they will have real clout in their local areas.
The Bill creates a severe difficulty for the employers. The Central Probation Council is right to describe this measure as a recipe for confusion of accountability and authority which leaves the employers—in this case the probation boards—in an invidious position. We should take serious note of that. I hope that the Government will look again at this provision. Am I right that Ministers have spoken of the new probation service as following the health service model? Should not the probation boards have the same stature as health trusts and police authorities? We should certainly oppose any measure designed to increase the powers of the Home Secretary. My fear is not Jack Straw; it is that at some stage in the future Home Secretaries could impose oppressive powers to control this service. I trust that the Minister will think again about this particular measure.
We welcome the arrangements set out in Clauses 25 to 36 to prevent unsuitable people working with children. Paedophiles often seek employment in child care settings, giving them the ability to wreak appalling abuse on vulnerable children who cart have their lives wrecked as a consequence. The scheme set out in the Bill will prove a valuable safeguard for such children.
We are pleased to see that, unlike the sex offenders register for example, the Bill gives the court a degree of discretion in deciding to which cases these restrictions should apply.
The new exclusion orders contained in Clauses 41 and 46, prohibiting offenders from entering a specified area for a specified period, monitored by electronic tagging, could be a useful power if the orders are used sparingly and appropriately. For example, they could require a sex offender to stay away from the home of a victim or potential victim whom he has been targeting, or require a stalker or perpetrator of domestic violence to stay away from his or her former victim.
We also welcome Clause 57, which enables requirements to submit to electronic monitoring to be included in the licence for offenders released from prison. There are undoubtedly borderline cases where the availability of electronic tagging could assure the

1297
Parole Board that it is safe to release on licence an offender who could be steered away from reoffending by parole supervision but who otherwise might be refused parole.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, will contribute to this debate and I shall be delighted to listen to her views. There are three particular provisions in the Bill, however, which I believe are misguided. The first is the raft of provisions providing for mandatory drug testing of suspects and offenders at all stages of the criminal justice process.
The resources for such extensive compulsory drug testing would be far better spent on providing more treatment services. I acknowledge that the Government have put more resources into drug treatment, but I am sure that the Minister would accept that there is still far too little treatment provision across the country. The Government estimate that the new testing provisions will cost over £45 million a year, comprising £22.6 million for drug testing people on arrest; £7.8 million for drug testing people serving community sentences; and £15.1 million for drug testing released prisoners. These resources could instead have financed a significant increase in community treatment for problem drug users.
If the courts know of positive drug testing but do not have immediate resources for drug assessment or treatment services, they will simply remand more defendants to drug-ridden prisons. This is hardly the most sensible way of reducing drug-related crime. It would make much more sense to spend the money to ensure that more courts have ready access to drug services to which they can bail or sentence problem drug users who appear before them.
Clause 63 is also misguided. It increases the maximum penalty for parents whose children persistently truant to three months' imprisonment. Imprisoning the parents of truants will do nothing to reduce crime. Anyone who has worked with persistent truants knows that they often come from difficult, disrupted and unstable family backgrounds. Giving their parents a prison sentence would worsen the situation by producing an even greater instability and hardship for the child and for the family as a whole.
The worst feature of the Bill is Clause 48, which requires courts always to imprison offenders who breach community services unless there are exceptional circumstances. Mandatory sentences always produce injustice, and this will be no exception. It will further overcrowd the prisons and greatly increase the number of short-term prisoners for whom little if any rehabilitative work is done during a few weeks in custody. Typically, an offender who is returned to court for breach of an order will have failed to attend, or have been substantially late for, two probation appointments or community service sessions. In many cases the court will conclude that fining the offender and allowing the order to continue holds out more hope of preventing reoffending than imprisonment. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, however, it will be required to pass a
1298
prison sentence which it may regard as unjust, disproportionate and likely to increase the risk of reoffending.
The Government estimate that 25,000 people a year could be imprisoned for breach under these provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out, this would be an additional cost to the Prison Service of £85 million in the first year and £70 million a year thereafter. The true figure could be much higher, because these calculations are based on an assumption that 50 per cent of the people who now fail to comply with orders will be deterred from non-compliance by the threat of automatic imprisonment. This is an absurd assumption. It flies in the face of all the available evidence and research which has found that changes in sentencing have little deterrent effect. It would therefore be more realistic to assume that, under these provisions, anything up to 50,000 people will be imprisoned each year. We will certainly oppose this clause strenuously during the Committee stage.
If this Bill had been limited to establishing a national probation service, to bringing forward measures to prevent unsuitable people from working with children and to extending the availability and flexibility of electronic tagging provisions, we could have welcomed it with just a few detailed reservations. It is regrettable that the Government, having allowed themselves to be suborned by their overwhelming desire to appear tough at all costs, include other measures in the Bill which will do serious damage to the sensible operation of our penal and criminal justice system.
There are often matters in the Bill where clarity is required. The report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has been submitted today. I was grateful for an advance copy. Will the Minister agree that in the matters relating to a drug treatment and testing order the negative procedures would be appropriate?
Does the Minister accept the committee's recommendation that the powers in Clauses 41, 42, 45 and 46 allow for the amendment of the Bill to increase the severity of a sentencing power? Does the Minister accept that these powers should be omitted? Is not the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee making a strong recommendation that, if they are to remain, they should be subject to affirmative procedures?
May I also draw attention to Clause 55, which I understand was added to the Bill in the other place. Am I right that this clause has been introduced to abolish the sentence of detention in a young offender institution? Does this mean that all convicted defendants over the age of 18 will be sentenced as adults?
I understand that an assurance was given in the other place that vulnerable adult prisoners will not be put at risk. Precisely how will the vulnerability and particular needs of young adults in prison be safeguarded?
The Prison Reform Trust tells me that there are currently 11,219 prisoners under the age of 21, just over 2,000 of whom are under 18. These juveniles, in

1299
the new youth justice system, are overseen by the Youth Justice Board. The Prison Service has worked to improve the quality and standards of the regime for the under-18s. The attention given to this group has, perhaps inevitably, led to a lack of attention and resources for young offender institutions holding those between the ages of 18 to 21. It is difficult to envisage how the particular needs of these young people will be attended to any better within the overcrowded prison system.
There are a number of sensible proposals in the Bill; but equally there are serious matters of concern. Just to take the effect of Clause 48, its implementation would result in the almost automatic imprisonment of offenders who breach their community orders. That means many more prisoners a year. It effectively means three more prisons the size of Dartmoor. All of this does not take into account what is being discussed in Downing Street today.
4 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I wish that I could give the Bill a warm welcome. After all, it sets out to strengthen community penalties. That is obviously right, necessary, timely and an important part of the strategy to build a more cost-effective criminal justice system. It sets out to reform the Probation Service. Some reform of the structure of the Probation Service to enable it to play a part in national criminal justice policymaking is long overdue. More protection for children from abuse is highly desirable, as is the establishment of the children and family court advisory support service and flexibility for the final warnings in the youth justice system.
But, sadly, one can welcome very little of the Bill. It is a measure with many missed opportunities, overlaid with a pointless punitiveness and, unfortunately, I fear, unlikely to achieve its aims.
I want to begin by commenting on the plans to reform the Probation Service and the penalties supervised by probation officers. I welcome the plans to reorganise the Probation Service, but I have grave concerns about Clause 2(2) which sets out the aims of the new service. The third aim is,
"the proper punishment of offenders".
I am very surprised to see such an aim set out in a statute and I should appreciate clarification from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who is infinitely more qualified than I to comment on that point. I thought that it was the court which punished. The order of the court, whether a prison or community sentence, is the punishment. To suggest that those supervising the court order, whether in prison or in the community, should themselves be doing the punishing seems to me to run contrary to all the international requirements on the treatment of offenders as well as causing strong offence to probation officers who carry out their work on a strong ethical basis. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell the House whether he knows of any other western European jurisdiction in which the officers
1300
implementing the penalties, whether in the prison or in the community, are required by statute to take upon themselves the task of punishing.
I now want to comment on Clauses 38 to 40, which relate to the renaming of orders. The proposed name changes have nothing to recommend them. They are confusing and the idea that they will increase public confidence seems very unlikely. I can imagine an advertising executive being quite daunted at the thought of having to devise a marketing campaign for a community rehabilitation order. Probably the best explanation is what we used to call "being put on probation".
The new name for community service orders is even worse; that is, community punishment order. At one blow, the name change destroys the ethos and meaning of a sanction which was invented here in Britain and spread all around the world. The essence of a community service order is "service". It is a measure which brings into the sentencing framework an element of reparation, restitution, paying back to the community, and putting offenders in a position to rebuild their relationship with the community and awakening in them a sense of social obligation.
At its best, it shows offenders that there are people worse off than themselves. It shows offenders that they can help people and be valued for it. Sometimes they voluntarily carry on with the community service work once the order is completed. It shows those being helped that offenders are people, too, and can do good as well as ill. It is a penalty with enormous possibilities for development. Once it becomes a community punishment order, it loses all that meaning. I really urge the Minister to reflect once more on the name changes.
I turn to Clause 48, which relates to imprisonment for breach of community sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, set out the case most eloquently. A major objection is that it removes discretion from the courts. It will lead to injustice and the courts will not be able to take the action which they believe to be right, having seen the person and heard the circumstances. It is most likely to lead, not to a reduction in crime, but to an increase in crime. Over the years, I have known many magistrates. They have all seemed to me to be capable of looking at the offender before them and deciding what course is the most likely to prevent further offending.
As we have heard, the measure will mean that many more people will go to prison. Estimates vary between 25,000—the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in May—and 50,000 if there is no deterrent effect. In that context, I want to draw the Minister's attention to research on deterrence commissioned by the Home Office from the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. It concludes that,
"the studies reviewed do not provide a basis for inferring that increasing the severity of sentences generally is capable of enhancing deterrent effects".
That research is available on the Home Office website and could probably be regarded as evidence-based.

1301
Increasing the number of people going to prison in one year by between 25,000 and 50,000 will increase the number of people receiving prison sentences by between 25 and 50 per cent. I want to remind the House what going to prison means. For many people, it means losing their homes. For most people in employment, it means losing their jobs and facing widespread discrimination in employment on release. It means meeting and getting to know many people who are looking for recruits for various criminal activities. It can mean becoming a drug addict. It is an experience which pushes people further out of legal society and towards the lawless fringes. It is socially very costly.
We are grateful for the information we have been given about the likely cost of such an increase in the use of prison, but can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General estimate the increase in social exclusion which will be created by the provision and the cost which will therefore fall to the budgets of other departments?
I want to mention briefly the measures relating to drugs. The vast extension of drug testing is estimated to cost £45 million a year, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The organisations which work daily with drug addicts have asked: what is the use of testing without treatment? The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, told us that 700 more drug workers will be recruited. Is that adequate when one considers the amount of drug misuse he described today?
What effect will the measures have on the excellent and well thought-out arrest referral schemes? Under those schemes, people involved with drugs who are arrested are given the opportunity, when in the police station, to get help from voluntary agencies. How can that voluntary and apparently very effective approach be combined with such a raft of compulsory testing?
I want to raise a concern about the abolition of the sentence of custody in a young offender institution. I understand the arguments—more flexibility and perhaps a chance to keep young offenders nearer their homes—but I fear the consequences. Because of pressure on the Prison Service—and it will be greatly increased by these measures—perhaps not as a matter of course, but as a matter of fact 18 year-olds will be placed on the normal adult wings in Wandsworth, Wormwood Scrubs, Liverpool and the other large prisons. They will be at serious risk of being inducted into the adult criminal world or worse.
In conclusion, these measures have been presented as if they will increase public protection, ensure greater social peace and benefit victims. I am sure that the Attorney-General will not accuse those who oppose measures in the Bill of living in Hampstead, being lawyers and not caring about victims. That accusation is unsustainable. Victims are not helped if the names of community penalties are changed to something long and incomprehensible. Victims are not helped if drug abusers are tested and then there is no treatment. Victims on disadvantaged housing estates are not helped if many more of the young people who live
1302
there are ex-prisoners, unable to get a job and confirmed in their criminal identity by having served a prison sentence, even though it was for being late twice for a probation appointment.
This is a measure of missed opportunities: a missed opportunity to create a framework for community penalties that will make it clear to the public that they work and that they benefit victims and society; a missed opportunity to develop community service in particular into a penalty that is clearly restorative, paying back something to the victim and to society; and a missed opportunity to give courts, judges and magistrates a greater role in imposing sentences that are specific to offenders and their circumstances, and following them through to see that they work. I hope that it is not too late for much of this ill-considered Bill to be improved.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill despite the concerns expressed by the previous three speakers, whom I greatly respect. I should make clear that I neither live in Hampstead nor am a lawyer. I see the Bill as another instalment in the Government's programme of reforming the criminal justice system to make it more effective, both organisationally and in terms of processes. This is episode three, following the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
In making my observations, I declare an interest as chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. It is no great secret that I was the Home Secretary's senior policy adviser from 1996 to the end of 1998. I share his desire to tackle the long-standing organisational problems of the criminal justice system and understand the importance of making community sentences more effective and publicly credible if they are to be seen as an alternative to prison.
As I sit through debates in this House, I sometimes believe that we want to have it both ways: we want to drive down the prison population but we do not face up to some of the consequences of that in terms of credible and rigorously enforced community sentences. I want to remark on those issues before turning to more specialist aspects of the Bill.
First, I come to the issue of reforming the Probation Service and increasing the credibility of community sentences. There is very little with which I am in any measure of agreement with the previous Home Secretary. However, he probably performed a public service in abolishing the earlier professional training for probation officers, based as it was on the diploma in social work. I say that having in a previous incarnation set up the first diploma in social work course in this country. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary put nothing in its place, and I was glad to have helped to establish a new qualification. It focuses much more on the enforcement aspects of probation work—an area where I believe some in the Probation Service have ended up on the wrong side of the argument about community punishment in relation to prisons and where a few are still positioned. We may hear from a few of them during the course of the Bill.

1303
The previous qualification and mix of functions were bound to leave the Probation Service confused about its primary role. Was it concerned primarily with enforcing court-ordered punishment or with welfare? I strongly support the removal of the family welfare function from the Probation Service and the establishment through this Bill of the new children and family court advisory and support service. Not only will it enable the new Probation Service to focus on its key task of enforcement; in my view, it will mean that we have a service to the courts which will better serve the interests of children.
I turn now to the issue of enforcement of community sentences. As I said earlier, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot curb the rise in the prison population when crime rises decade by decade and at the same time persist with too narrow a range of community sanctions which are inadequately enforced. At Second Reading in the other place the Home Secretary cited one large probation area, which for the sake of decency I shall not name, where nine out of 10 offenders breached national standards by failing to turn up on three or more occasions for probation appointments but were not subjected to further action. I repeat: nine out of 10.
I accept that enforcement has improved recently under leadership from ACOP, but that leadership started to be exercised effectively only when the Home Secretary began to press the public confidence aspects of properly enforced community punishments. If we do not want the prison population to rise decade by decade, we must face up to having a wider range of rigorous community punishments properly enforced through a reformed Probation Service, using new technology to the maximum.
The other evening this House indulged in a good deal of wishful thinking about community punishments on the subject of making social security benefits conditional on not breaching a community order. Under the present probation arrangements, courts send more people to prison and for longer terms. Before we criticise Clause 48, we might reflect on how effective the present arrangements are.
During the passage of the Bill we shall hear quite a lot of what I would describe as somewhat mealy-mouthed arguments about the terminology of community sentences. It seems to be entirely sensible to inject the word "punishment" into the title of such sentences. As a long-term supporter of the Plain English Campaign, I believe that we should call these sentences what they are: they are community punishments. The offenders, the victims, the general public and the enforcement service will then know where they stand.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was not about the propriety of punishment; it was about the propriety of punishment being imposed by the executive?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we can have a philosophical debate about that and no doubt we shall
1304
do at later stages of the Bill. I am trying to set out my agenda in terms of my response to the Bill. I shall be happy to engage with the noble Earl and the noble Baroness in a philosophical discussion about that at a later stage.
I believe that in plain English we are dealing with community punishments. In my judgment, being clear that they are punishments to be enforced in accordance with national standards makes it far easier for the courts to use them without fear of being accused of going for soft options. In addition, they will be more reassuring to victims and to public confidence. We cannot simply shrug away concerns about public confidence. That is not being populist; in this country we police by consent and operate our criminal justice system by a degree of public consent.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the restructuring of the Probation Service. It is a key aspect of community enforcement to have the police and Probation Service working together closely, especially with sex offenders and persistent offenders. As many people in the Probation Service and the police service have said to me, realigning probation areas with police force areas is a major step forward. I believe that it is to be welcomed, as is the creation of a national probation service. It should provide the direction and leadership which are long overdue and provide greater consistency of enforcement between different areas.
Of course, the local boards are important but we should not forget that the local management arrangements that are in place have not been totally successful in achieving resources for the Probation Service, in improving practice consistency and in achieving public recognition of the legitimate achievements of the Probation Service that other noble Lords have mentioned. A stronger national focus would improve some of those aspects.
I strongly support the new measures on compulsory drug testing. Of course they will cost more to implement and of course it follows that more testing is likely to mean more positive results and the need for more treatment services. However, the fact that treatment services are still inadequate in some places does not mean that we should hold back on compulsory testing, as some are suggesting. That is a false argument. The two are not alternatives. We need both testing and treatment services.
Drug action teams should use the new money that has been provided to press on more vigorously than has so far been the case with the expansion of treatment services. The slow progress on testing should not be used as an argument to justify not pressing on with compulsory testing.
We have yet to exploit the full potential of new technology for electronic monitoring, which, combined with effective supervision, could help to create effective community punishments. I hope that the Government will not be deflected by the contrived attacks of the Opposition spokesman in the other place on home detention curfews. They have been a huge success when applied to people who were

1305
coming out of prison on licence anyway, with more than 95 per cent of offenders completing their period of HDC without being convicted or cautioned or having proceedings still pending. That shows what we can achieve on community punishment if we set our minds to it. I welcome the provision in the Bill to make further use of electronic monitoring as an alternative to prison. It can often be a more effective way of punishing.
Finally, I welcome the new measures on juveniles. I particularly welcome the measure to help to prevent unsuitable people working with children and to make it a criminal offence for anyone so identified to apply for or accept work with children. From my experience in social services, I know that paedophiles are devious people and are far from self-evident. The Government are to be congratulated on further strengthening the provisions against people who seek to abuse children. It is clear from the debate so far that there will be many areas of detailed scrutiny and discussion as we take the Bill through the House, but its shape and content make it an important criminal justice reforming measure that deserves our full support.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I start with a general point. I am appalled by the recent attempts to politicise the administration of criminal justice. The Government and the Opposition appear to be vying with each other as to who is the tougher on crime. Having apparently been stung by the criticism of having done too little to stop English football thugs causing mayhem at Euro 2000, thereby seriously, if not fatally, prejudicing the 2006 World Cup bid, the Government have resorted to gesture politics.
The Prime Minister's lecture at Tubinger University in Germany last Saturday gave the clearest indication that the urge to take action to convince the public that something positive is being done is so strong that no time is taken to think through the proposals, or even to consult those who are affected. Apart from the obvious forensic criticisms, based on the common law or on human rights legislation, which I need not repeat, I ask from a practical point of view how the police are to cope with football thugs who, in preparing themselves for a night of thuggery, are wise enough to take the precaution of carrying neither money nor credit cards with them.
It was not ever thus. Until the 1990s, sentencing and the criminal law were not party political issues. Legislation was not introduced to score political points. In the 1970s, criminal justice legislation would not have been introduced unless a neutral body, such as an interdepartmental committee, had thoroughly reviewed the issues and produced the proposals. As a result, it was considered excessive to have even one new criminal justice Bill a year.
That system has disappeared. Legislation now emerging from the Government is politically driven, such as the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. Outside bodies, such as the Advisory Council on the Penal
1306
System and the Criminal Law Revision Committee, have almost completely disappeared. Not long ago, there was bipartisan consensus that the aims of sentencing should concentrate firmly on the rehabilitation of offenders. Of course, no one doubted for a moment that those who commit serious crimes must receive a custodial sentence. That approach appears no longer to be politically correct. The Government and the Opposition appear to have overlooked Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which makes prison the sentence of last resort.
Clause 48 provides an almost automatic sentence of imprisonment. The Government well know that the words "exceptional circumstances" have been so narrowly defined by the courts that they have almost come to mean "once in a blue moon". By seeking to remove judicial discretion, the Government are attacking judicial independence. If Parliament requires the judiciary to impose a sentence that the judiciary considers unjust, it is a clear attack on the independence of the judge.
Your Lordships had no difficulty in appreciating that concept when, some time ago, I drew attention to the Russian phenomenon of telephone judges, who were phoned up by the executive during a trial and told what sentence should be imposed. When I took up that issue, somewhat critically, at a dinner party where I met the chief prosecuting counsel, he waved my criticisms aside, saying, "Well, after all our hard work, we are not going to run the risk of judges making a nonsense of what we have achieved".
Save as a matter of degree, I do not see that what is happening here by statute is all that different. Instead of being rung up and told what sentence to provide, Parliament has set it out in the statute. It does not matter how unjust you think it is as a judge, unless there are exceptional circumstances—a sense of injustice is not one of them—that is the sentence that you are obliged to impose. The results of Clause 48 will involve, from to time, a judge being obliged to impose a sentence which he considers is unjust. In any event, it is a sentence which is likely to be too short for any rehabilitation work.
There has already been reference to the extent to which this provision will increase, and substantially increase, the prison population. There has already been a reference to the cost involved. There seems to be little to support the nature of that provision except that the executive does not have confidence in those who are appointed to exercise the judicial function.
To some extent, I applaud the Bill because it is an indication that the Government realise that the public must be educated to understand that sentences within the community involve punishment. Unless the public so understand, there will be inadequate confidence in community sentences and as a result, under the impact of public opinion, the prison population will increase.
The Government are foolish to place so little confidence in the reasoning ability of the public and in their understanding of the elementary points of sentencing. Renaming sentences—Clauses 38, 39 and 40—will not achieve anything at all. It may add to

1307
confusion in that the probation order will sound very similar to the community order. Strangely enough, the probation order does not refer to punishment and the community service order does not refer to rehabilitation. As I suggest, there is likely to be confusion as a result.
I do not wish to take up further time on other matters in the Bill because they have been well covered by previous speakers. I accept the strength and validity of their criticism. I hope that the Government will think again, but hope is now beginning not to spring eternal, having regard to the extraordinary behaviour in which this Government and the Opposition are indulging on the subject of punishment.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, two months ago, I received the customary letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, informing me that, having reached a certain age, my services as a magistrate were no longer required. It is in that capacity that I declare an interest and express my personal views gained from over 30 years on the Bench.
I never served on the youth panel so my only experience with children was via the family court. I saw that work as very much a protection issue for the innocent children caught up by warring parents unable to settle their differences concerning the children.
After many years spent listening to heart-rending situations involving children, I learnt how important it was to have wise advice from dedicated professionals. Therefore, I welcome measures which will strengthen that support and, it is hoped, ease the way for distressed and unhappy families.
Like all new services, CAFCASS, as I am sure it will be called, will require adequate funding. If the necessary finance is not forthcoming, there will be great frustration as expectations will not be realised. Therefore I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will be able to assure me that the service will be properly resourced and has been thought through in detail.
Mentioning the words "thought through in detail" leads me to wonder at this point whether the Prime Minister's initiative on loutish behaviour will be included in this Bill. I was amazed at what appeared to be a comment off the top of his head when he was in a panic. I was even more astonished that a Prime Minister should announce such a measure when he was in another country. It seemed to me to be rather like washing dirty linen in public. Potential visitors from Germany may think twice about coming here if they accept the Prime Minister's view that such behaviour is prevalent in every town and village.
Part II is perhaps the most important part of the Bill. I am sure that other noble Lords were as horrified as I was by the depravity and cruelty which took place not only in Wales but in other institutions around Britain. Those were children who, through no fault of their own, had been placed in care. I can hardly bear to use
1308
the phrase "in care". The children were subjected to the most appalling and terrible experiences. I feel deeply ashamed whenever I think of it. How on earth did we let it happen?
I have never forgotten the exhibition organised by the police on paedophiles and their behaviour, although I felt that I just could not stay until the end because it was too upsetting. I saw a video of how a small boy was sexually abused. His expression of sheer fear, terror and misery haunts me constantly.
People who offend in that way should not be allowed to work or have close contact with children, I believe, ever again. I welcome measures introduced to reflect that concern. In particular, I welcome placing the burden of proof on the individual to show that he is no longer a risk if he should ever apply for the order to be revoked. But we shall need to look at the arrangements for those disqualification orders. I understand that they will be used only against criminals sentenced to 12 months or more. That seems to leave a loophole and amendments must be tabled to deal with that in Committee.
Another area of concern is the patronage which will be vested in the hands of the Secretary of State. Just as in the Learning and Skills Bill, there is that great centralising measure with the chairmen of both national and local boards being appointed by the Secretary of State. That will need extremely careful scrutiny in Committee.
Part III deals with offenders. I was saddened to see that the Government want to change the name of some court orders as, apparently, Ministers feel that the present names are not understood. I disagree and cannot accept that "community rehabilitation" is better than "probation". After all, the expression "probation" has been in use for many years and I believe that it is understood by most people, even if riot by Her Majesty's Government. In particular, it is understood by those people appearing before the courts.
I also believe that "community service" is more acceptable than "community punishment". After all "service" is what is being done—unpaid work for the community. However, I concede that the phrase "combination order" is awkward and would be better expressed as "probation and community service order".
I hope that this is not change for the sake of change and I hope that it is not yet another of new Labour's modernisation obsessions.
That leads to breach of community orders. I am deeply concerned that mandatory imprisonment for failure to comply with an order is creating a straitjacket. For example, it takes no account of those suffering from mental illness. I am reminded of unit fines, which were inflexible on introduction but were soon altered. Magistrates should be given the discretion and flexibility to make decisions in each case without the stricture of obligatory penalties. I believe, however, that if an offender breaches an order, he

1309
should be dealt with firmly and speedily. He may, indeed, receive a custodial sentence but not a mandatory one.
The Bill has already been the cause of much debate on the issue of the non-attendance of pupils at school. The Bill would raise the maximum penalty from level 3 to level 4; in other words, from a fine of £1,000 to one of £2,500 and/or three months' imprisonment. It seems rather absurd to raise the fine to such a high level. During my time on the Bench I occasionally heard cases of that nature. Most of those who appeared before us were single mothers on benefit who also had other children. I have looked at the current sentencing guidelines for a first offence for someone in that position. Where a child has missed three weeks at school, the starting point would be £40 or, if a child missed half a term, £100. A guilty plea would result in a discount in which the fines would be £26 instead of £40 or £66 instead of £100. That is obviously a far cry from £1,000 never mind £2,500.
I am told that the purpose of raising the level is to give the court the power to issue a warrant for arrest if the parent fails to attend a court hearing. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. I believe that parents should attend to explain why a child has not been going to school. However, that seems to be a heavy-handed way to go about it. I would hope that another method could be found to achieve the same ends.
I have always felt that the problem was the delay in getting the case to court. I remember a case where the non or minimal attendance was spread over two terms. It must he better to bring the case at a much earlier stage. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how many pilot parenting orders have been made in the past two years and how effective they have been. I would also welcome a copy of the evaluation. The Bill is therefore like the curate's egg: it has some good points which I welcome but others which are in need of amendment.
The Government have an enormous problem. Crime—particularly violent crime—is rising. Police numbers are falling and new measures will require more manpower. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have a responsibility to ensure that where possible we improve the Bill so that, when enacted, it will be a useful tool in the battle against crime.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill, which makes two sensible and interesting changes to the Probation Service and the court welfare services. The Probation Service is reorganised into a national probation service for England and Wales, the 54 present separate services being reduced to 42. Their areas will be coterminous with the police and Crown Prosecution Service. That should make for greater consistency of practice and make it easier to spread good practice across the country. One national director should be in a more powerful position to put the case for adequate
1310
resources, which are essential if the Government's aims of reducing offending and protecting the public are to be realised. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I should like reassurance about the resources to be provided.
The other change is the creation of a unified service for the court welfare services which will become the children and family court advisory and support service, or CAFCASS, as it is now called. I am not keen on acronyms, but that is certainly less of a mouthful than the whole six words. It is to be a merger of the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service for public law cases; the family court welfare service for private law cases, and the children's section of the Official Solicitor's office.
The aim of creating a single source of expertise within the court system is to be welcomed. It may take a little time to settle down and make those now working in the system happy that their interests and expertise will not be diluted or ignored. I know that the guardians ad litem have some anxieties concerning: first, the qualifications of the officers of CAFCASS; secondly, the right to conduct litigation and right of audience (which comes within Clause 15); and, thirdly, the inspection service.
When the Minister, Paul Boateng, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Mrs Jane Kennedy, came to speak to the All Party Children Group last week—we are very grateful that they did—I asked about training. I was told that discussions are underway regarding an integrated strategy and accreditation scheme and that the Government were looking at continual professional development, an issue which has been ignored in the past. Both trainee and in-service training issues, as a modular degree course based on the OU distance learning approach, were being considered.
The aim is to have CAFCASS up and running by April 2001. Training recommendations are to be ready by September 2000. Further decisions depended on the appointment of a chairman and board for CAFCASS. When is that to happen? September 2000 is very near. If the new service is to be a success, which we all want it to be, the training programme is vitally important. Existing officers, who may have their job descriptions changed, will want to know how they are to work. They need to know soon if morale is to be kept up.
A second issue which I raised at the meeting was the matter of how children's views will be held by the court. Clause 12(1)(c) of the Bill defines as one of the service's duties:
"to make provision for the children to be represented in [family] … proceedings".
That begs the question: what is to be represented, the child's wishes or the child's best interests, or both? To put it another way, if there is a conflict between the CAFCASS officer and the child, who instructs the lawyer?
Under the rules governing guardians ad litem, if the guardian's views of best interests conflict with the child's view of his or her best interests, the child has the right to be separately represented by a lawyer, while the guardian continues to report to the court.

1311
On the other hand, the Official Solicitor only ever represents the child's best interests. He usually informs the court of the child's views, but that does not mean that he represents them. Indeed, he may argue against them. Can the Minister, or the Attorney-General, when he replies tell us how this problem is to be resolved, and also how Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has to be considered?
I turn to Part III of the Bill, about which I have quite a few reservations. I should like to say, before embarking on this part of my remarks, that I am totally sympathetic to the aims of the Government in trying to reassure the public that the Government understand the frustration and horror that those who suffer burglary, vandalism, assault, and noise feel about the system that allows this to continue. They think that the Government are soft and the sentences inadequate, particularly the community service order.
We have to make it clear that it is an adequate and useful sentence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern said, and that breaches will be dealt with quickly. I know that there has been some slowness regarding that, but there has been a great deal of improvement lately and I am sure that the Probation Service appreciates that there must be. I firmly believe that to change the name of the order to "community punishment order" is a bad mistake. It is even slightly ridiculous. It sounds as if it is the community that is to be punished and not the offender.
I hope that Government will listen to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which I thought were very sound. Of course, the offender must repay his debt to society. However, at the same time he must be put in the way of learning other ways to behave, and of new possibilities for job training. He must find new interests and meet people who can sympathise and help. I dread to think what Lady Wootton would have thought of the proposals in the Bill for the name of the order. It was she and her advisory council at the Home Office who invented the community service order, which can be so successful and could be made so now. I hope very much that we can go back to "community service order". I think that it can be made to be understood by the public.
I am also against bringing offenders back to court without a second warning and the magistrate being given no discretion at all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others have said. That is quite wrong. There will be increased pressure on the overcrowded prison system with little if any rehabilitation taking place during the few weeks in custody. In many cases a fine and a continuing order is much more likely to prevent the offender from reoffending, and I hope that we can make changes in that regard.
As has been said, even the Home Office suggests that 25,000 people or more will be sent to prison, at enormous cost. That is an incredible waste of taxpayers' money. My noble friend Lord Warner told some of us a week or so ago about the highly successful work being done by the Youth Justice Board. If
1312
something new is required, perhaps that could be extended to the 18 to 25 year-olds; that would be far better than sending those young people to prison.
My final point concerns the proposals to increase the penalties on parents for the truancy of their children. The fine on parents of a persistent truant is to be £2,500 or three months in prison. Parents of such children are most unlikely to be able to pay even modest fines, let alone those of £2,500. They tend to come from the poorest areas with the lowest incomes, and most have a range of social problems. The schools themselves will begin to experience problems if this provision is brought into force. If the parents are sent to gaol, it is likely that the children will be taken into care, thus adding another problem to an already dysfunctional family.
And the question of human rights may arise. Surely people should not be deprived of their liberty for the actions or non-actions of others. I hope that the Attorney-General will think about that. The Government have given commendable support to non-punitive anti-truancy programmes Perhaps they can be extended.
There are some aspects of the Bill to praise. The protection of children is enhanced. But I, like many others, have raised matters of concern. I hope that the Attorney-General can reply in a positive way. Let us make improvements to the Bill as it goes through this House so that we can be proud of it. At this moment, I cannot really say that I am.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I suspect that no Bill on crime and punishment in this age will be anything but extremely difficult to put together. This Bill is no exception. Our job is to scrutinise and speak up about those areas where we feel improvements can be made. I agree with much that has already been said.
In relation to one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, reference to "punishment" in the issues to be considered under Clause 2 by the new probation service (as I shall persist in calling it) is a mistake. However, I congratulate the Government on the protection of children provisions, Clauses 25 to 37, which are a model by comparison with what I am afraid is now law in the Care Standards Act, about which we had many debates hitherto. It may be that there is a difference in departments, but the Home Office understands a great deal about basic human rights and procedures.
But even in commending those provisions I raise one issue: as things stand, the Secretary of State can, by order, extend the range of offences in respect of which disqualification from working with children will automatically apply. That is an important issue. It adds a second and in many cases more important punishment to an offence than the punishment provided under the mainstream criminal law. That extension should therefore be granted by a positive procedure.
My other point on the disqualification arrangement again echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was saying rather eloquently in terms of the

1313
rehabilitation of offenders, which I am sure we all agree is difficult to achieve. Is it necessary to say, as the Bill says, that someone who is disqualified from working with children cannot make an application for the lifting of that disqualification, not merely 10 years after the offence was committed, but 10 years after he or she was released from prison? That creates a difficult climate in which individuals can hope, within prison, to rehabilitate themselves so that, in the case of a long sentence, they will come out of prison radically altered from the state in which they went in.
I should like briefly to back what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in relation to Clause 15, which allows the new service, CAFCASS, to appoint an officer to represent a child in proceedings rather than, as now, a solicitor or solicitor and barrister. In that regard, representing what many of us think, Barnardo's said,
"Barnardo's believes that the best interests of the child … have been well served by the combination of the Guardian Ad Litem and the child's solicitor … We are concerned that this Bill will diminish an effective system … If the guardian is no longer able to instruct a suitably qualified lawyer"—
of course, there is now a highly developed children's lawyer panel—
"there is a risk that the views and opinions of the child will not be fully heard by the Court".
Clause 16 allows the officer who is acting as advocate for the child to be a witness in the case. How can that be satisfactory? How can someone in the witness box represent a child who is sitting in the court? How can the child's questions be asked if the witness is the advocate? I feel that that needs looking into and shall be interested to hear more when the Government respond.
I should like to make one or two points on Clause 28. It has been well covered and I agree with the points made. The Probation Service in Inner London carried out a two-year survey into breaches of monitoring. It found that over the relevant period 28 per cent of the total case load had been breached; that is, 4,388 cases; and during that period, 21 per cent of those breaches received a custodial sentence. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I do not see how the increasing use of prison sentencing now can be anything but increased further if Clause 28 goes ahead. It places a near compulsion on magistrates to send offenders to prison.
My next point concerns the arrangement in Schedule 1 for what are called "local boards"; the old probation committees. Schedules tend to be rather dry stuff, as I know only too well, but sometimes the devil is in the detail and Schedule 1 is no exception. My colleague has already referred to some of the aspects of this schedule, but I urge your Lordships to look at it. It is an astonishing display of control freakery. This is a government-created quango—if that is the right description of these local boards. Incidentally, while we are on nomenclature, is not that the most unmemorable, downbeat title for such an important new body? They are not even "probation local boards", just "local boards".
1314
As I say, Schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State a totally counterproductive set of powers. One might expect the appointment of local boards to come from the Secretary of State. But, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia said in opening from these Benches, the right is also reserved to appoint the chief executive of the local board, and he or she will then be on the local board. At the moment, the probation committees appoint their own chief executives. They have to draw up a short list which the Home Office then has to approve, and the person they select has to be approved by the Home Office. But this is a big leap. Once appointed by the Secretary of State, the chief executive is then employed by the Crown: he is not an employee of the local board. Everyone else is, but not the chief executive. It does not need anyone who is experienced in organisations—I spent 25 years of my long legal career looking at little else—to see that that is a self-defeating state of affairs. It creates conflict; it creates pressures; and it creates suspicion. Who does the poor chief executive look to when there is a dispute between the local board and the Secretary of State? I do not need to go on.
The "tenure of members" of the board is totally determined by the Secretary of State as, indeed, are the procedures. Remuneration is also determined by the Secretary of state, but that is fair enough. Sub-committees, and so on, are totally determined by the Secretary of State. Then we come to paragraph 8 of the schedule where, for one scintilla of a second, you think that here is a power that the local board can exercise. Paragraph 8(1) states:
"A local board may appoint staff on terms and conditions determined by the local hoard"—
hooray! But, sub-paragraph (2) states that any such determination,
"requires the approval of the Secretary of State",
and so on.
Paragraph 11, which is headed "Payments to Boards", states that the Secretary of State
"may pay … any amount he considers appropriate";
but then he may not. The supervision of these local boards is also totally determined by the Secretary of State, as are its ancillary powers. In that respect, the boards cannot borrow. How on earth can a local board get on with its work if it cannot borrow to tide itself over cashflow difficulties? Indeed, the current probation committees do so. Moreover, it cannot hold land.
I believe that the Government have gone to the expense of £1 million to commission a consultants' report on property—noble Lords know what we all think of consultants' reports—and a right old shambles that is. Although it may seem a rather trivial home-keeping issue, I believe that we should take account of what the Central Probation Council and the National Association of Probation Officers say; namely, that this is a very important bureaucratic issue that will cause mayhem, waste and frustration.

1315
Directions can be given; indeed, paragraph 14 of Schedule I says that "different directions" may be given for,
"different purposes … either general or special".
Frankly, it would not require anyone in the Home Office who was anything more than incompetent to grind this whole magnificent system to a complete halt. Therefore, I urge the Government very strongly to reconsider the whole of Schedule 1. If there is no degree of trust between government and these local boards, we shall not get performance. Moreover, I do not think that good people will want to serve on the boards if they are as ludicrously constrained, as is currently the case, with regard to their powers.
As I am sure your Lordships will agree, it is difficult enough even now to get good, experienced and capable men and women in the midst of their careers to take on such obligations. I really do despair when one has, as one has at the back of this proposal, the assumption that somehow the centre will do it better than the regions, or the localities. In his opening remarks, the Minister talked about a "unified and centrally-driven service"; it is certainly that. He also talked about the local boards being "more representative". But how on earth will they be more representative? Indeed, they cannot conceivably be more so than those run and appointed by local authorities, as is the case now.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said—I think I quote him correctly—that the central control that the Bill will give, especially under Schedule 1, will provide both "direction and leadership", which is long overdue. Does the noble Lord really believe that? Frankly, I do not. This is the absolute recipe for a eunuch board or a series of eunuch boards, which will be worse than useless.
The noble Lord also said that probation committees have not done a "totally successful" job of getting the necessary resources. Surprise, surprise! Just tell me about one arm of state—schools, hospitals or pensions—that has a plenitude of resources. Whose fault is that? What about the next government, or the one after? Are we really content for this crucial service to remain so totally at the whim, and in the hands, of the Secretary of State of the time? I am not; and I have not found anyone out there who thinks that this is satisfactory. On that issue, I urge strongly that the Government should look rationally and objectively at this—I should not say that because they always do so. Perhaps I should just urge them to look again.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, from my position as chairman of the Parole Board of England and Wales I shall concentrate of Part I of the Bill—that is, the creation of the national probation service—and parts of the Bill that deal with greater use of electronic monitoring, stricter enforcement and the new powers for compulsory drug testing of offenders and alleged offenders.
Perhaps I may turn, first, to the creation of the national probation service. I believe that this legislation provides an opportunity to bring about
1316
greater consistency and co-operation between the criminal justice agencies; it provides a launch pad for the Probation Service to be even better at reducing offending and reoffending and protecting the public; it places the Probation Service in a better position to persuade the courts and the public that community supervision is vigorous and effective in combating crime.
I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill will result in a stronger national identity and consistency for probation services, together with strong local accountability and service delivery. As we have heard, with the Probation Service fragmented into 54 areas at present and with no national leader, it is difficult to ensure consistency of practice and spread effective practice in supervising offenders nationwide.
The Parole Board works closely with the Probation Service and so we observe from very close quarters the importance of the service's contribution to criminal justice. In recent years, I have witnessed enormous changes in the service. The one significant change is that the service now sees itself very much as part of the criminal justice system, concerned not only with rehabilitation but also with public protection. It is therefore hard to imagine a more difficult and sensitive job than the one which the Probation Service performs. It is equally hard to imagine an effective penal system that does not rely heavily on the professional skills and experience of the Probation Service.
Any measures that strengthen the ability of the Probation Service to perform this crucial role need to be supported. The role of the Probation Service is, and must continue to be, central in relation to those who are in the community; those who are in prison; and those who are making the difficult transition from prison back into the community.
Today, I should like to take time in your Lordships' House to spell out, from the point of view of the Parole Board, how the proposed changes will impact on throughcare and discretionary early release of prisoners. Joint working between the Prison Service and the Probation Service is of great importance to the Parole Board. This working together will ensure that the reports and risk assessments that we receive from prisons and probation officers will be of the highest quality. Risk assessment, which enables us to determine whether an offender is suitable for discretionary release on licence, is a shared concern and is one of the most exacting tasks.
It is recognised as a starting point of work with offenders and the starting point of sentence planning. Probation staff work within prisons and assist prison management to monitor, evaluate and develop resettlement plans with a view to assessing and managing risk. Prison-based probation staff use their links with the outside Probation Service to obtain information about potentially dangerous behaviour and contribute to inter-disciplinary risk assessments for various purposes.
The work of the Probation Service in managing offenders in the community following their release from custody should, therefore, be built on the work

1317
undertaken in prisons. Better alignment of organisational boundaries within the criminal justice system would assist this further. It would also improve consistency of performance and standards between areas that are currently left to ad hoc local arrangements and differing interpretations of best practice. It would enable improvement of arrangements for disseminating best practice and enable the Parole Board to become involved in probation policy formulation that impacts on discretionary release issues. A national headquarters with which the Parole Board could have direct contact and develop working relationships would overcome the difficulties of communication that we currently encounter.
Central accountability would also help to overcome inconsistencies between probation areas. It would give the service a strong voice at all levels, which is bound to improve the way in which prisoners are managed before and after release.
There is also great merit in co-ordination of corrections policy which has shared aims and objectives, the same risk assessment bench marks and methods and the same systems of accrediting programmes for offenders. However, it will be important for the service to retain local links and local accountability if it is to retain its effectiveness and remain responsive to local needs and circumstances. A national probation service would not necessarily lead to a better service. The balance between police and operational competencies is important and it is this balance which in my view would ensure an effective probation service. Moreover, to perform its role effectively the service needs support, understanding, appropriate and workable organisational structures and, of course, resources, which have already been mentioned.
The Penal Affairs Consortium has argued that the division of accountability between central government and local probation boards must be clarified and boards must have sufficient clout to ensure that local people of high calibre will consider that it is worth being on them. Sufficient resources must be made available to the Probation Service and voluntary partner organisations to allow high quality work to take place which builds on evidence of what works most effectively in reducing crime. It would be helpful to be given assurances on these issues.
Furthermore, supervision and rehabilitation are at the heart of the new national probation service. This is an opportunity for the Government to set out clearly the overall aims of the service, as I believe that this would help to improve public understanding of the service and increase public confidence. While enforcement of licences when people are released from prison and enforcement of community penalties are critical, I argue that the service's role in rehabilitation is equally important. I therefore urge the Government to spell out the Probation Service's role in rehabilitation.
1318
As we know, the Probation Service has a history which stretches back over 100 years. There is a richness here which has relevance to the Government's aspirations for the modernised Probation Service. The service has always worked with those at the fringes, trying to influence the lives of those whom society finds easier to exclude than to include. Some people in our communities experience disadvantage from an early age. We all recognise that our prisons are more likely to be filled with those who have poor family backgrounds, fail at school and drift into unemployment.
Tackling crime means tackling such problems. Punishment and the strict enforcement of community sentences are a legitimate part of the community's expectations, but the Probation Service knows from its own rich experience that preventing offending requires individual offenders to acquire a true sense of citizenship. That is a human right. The Probation Service has vast skill in challenging unacceptable behaviour and promoting the re-integration of offenders. These are the ingredients of a true recipe for crime reduction and we would do well to remember it. The desire for revenge is so often allowed to dominate the way we punish crime in this country. Rhetoric about toughness so often lends itself to policies which make it more difficult to make a real difference to the level of crime that we face.
If we want to increase public confidence and reduce levels of crime, we must focus on prevention, inclusion and rehabilitation. Exclusion, revenge and intolerance are not the way forward.
The service has a particular expertise in community-based risk assessment. Recognising the danger signals in attitudes and behaviour are part of the service's shrewdness. The way it handles the most difficult and dangerous people in society proves its capability. This expertise is relevant to the enforcement of community penalties and is vital to the courts and other parts of the criminal justice system. It would therefore be a backward step if the service were to be allowed no discretion. What I have in mind here is the clause which replaces two non-statutory formal warnings with a single statutory one and introduces a presumption of imprisonment for offenders who are found to be in breach of a community sentence.
I do not argue with the introduction of a single warning before breach proceedings are initiated, but I believe that a near mandatory prison sentence is bad law. It will impose needless costs on the Prison Service and increase pressure on the prison system by increasing the number of short-term prisoners for whom little, if any, rehabilitative work is undertaken during a few weeks in prison. It will undermine the effectiveness of probation work. Moreover, the presumption of imprisonment is a significant erosion of judicial discretion in sentencing and will make it inevitable that some offenders will go to prison in direct conflict with the original intention of the sentencers.
Having praised the virtues of the service, I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the report, Towards Racial Equality, the thematic

1319
inspection report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation which was published last week. It is disappointing, to say the least, that the progress which the service made in the 1980s and 1990s in this area has diminished as far as the question of racial equality is concerned. In his foreword to the report, Sir Graham Smith, Her Majesty's Inspector of Probation, said,
"I was dismayed by many of the findings of which some raised very serious concerns. I was particularly disturbed about the disparities found in a number of areas of practice between the approach to work with white offenders compared to minority ethnic offenders. Although there was a commitment to work with racially motivated offenders, few services had produced any detailed guidance necessary to transfer this into operational reality".
Sir Graham quite rightly states that racial equality is a "given" and not an optional extra and must be integrated into all aspects of the service's work; that it must challenge and address the behaviour of minority ethnic offenders; and that work must be undertaken to confront and change the racist attitude and behaviour of offenders. He further emphasises that race equality is integral to "what works" and that race equality is synonymous with good practice and is central to the core business of the Probation Service.
Although the findings of the report are extremely disappointing, its recommendations are strong and timely. As we are moving towards a new style Probation Service, it is important that race equality is built into its very foundation and is seen as an integral part of it. It would therefore be helpful to be given an assurance that the recommendations of this report will be fully implemented and not just be treated as guidance and that racial equality and its promotion will be part of the national standards.
I now turn to electronic monitoring. As I understand it, this Bill will provide the statutory authority which will allow the imposition of electronic monitoring on any prisoner who is released from a custodial sentence and who is subject to a period of supervision on licence in the community.
When determining whether or not to release someone on licence, the Parole Board takes into account a number of factors. These include: the nature of the crime; previous convictions; prisoners' previous compliance with supervision (if relevant); behaviour and progress in prison; and the release plan; that is, accommodation, employment and arrangements in the community for supervision. So I presume that this additional provision in the armoury is intended to help with compliance and that its availability is not intended to change the way in which we currently assess risk. It would therefore be helpful to be given some clarity on that matter.
Finally, I say a few words on measures to deal with drugs. Like others, I applaud the fact that the Government are determined to break the link between drugs and crime and that the drug testing provisions in the Bill are intended as a means of encouraging good behaviour and deterring drug misuse. I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that drug testing will be imposed only where it can assist in the effective resettlement of a prisoner on release from custody.
1320
We all know that drug misuse is a chronic relapsing condition. We also know that drug treatments can make a significant positive impact on those problems, but we have no convincing evidence that testing alone can do so. It is therefore important that a drug abstinence order as a requirement is used in conjunction with drug treatment. We must also recognise that as offenders cannot simply stop misusing illegal drugs altogether, although they may have ceased offending and reduced their drug use, testing in these circumstances can be destructive to the motivation of those who are reducing their drug use but are not managing to stop it completely. It would be helpful to consider those issues.
It is equally important that drug abstinence orders and drug testing are used in appropriate cases and where necessary with drug treatment. Spending resources on drug testing without making sufficient provision for drug treatment will not be an effective way of utilising them.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I should like to identify myself with my noble friend Lord Warner in welcoming the Bill and in supporting its general thrust to modernise criminal justice and court services. I particularly support the proposals outlined by the Minister in relation to sentences for those involved in crimes against children and the child protection measures contained within the Bill.
I wish to address my remarks to one part of the Bill; that is, to the creation of CAFCASS—as my noble friend remarked, it is a somewhat long and clumsy title—and, within that, to the proposals for mediation services which are contained in Part I, Clauses 11 to 17 of the Bill.
I should declare an interest as a long-standing supporter of and adviser to NCH Action for Children, which is the largest single volume voluntary sector provider of family mediation services, operating as it does seven services providing mediation in large areas of England and Wales. Several services also offer children support services and child contact facilities. Such services are funded in partnership with local probation services. I have drawn on its experience and on the excellent briefing with which National Family Mediation was able to provide me in explaining the importance of its work—of which NCH Action for Children is but a part—and the concerns for which it is seeking reassurance from the Minister.
As noble Lords will be aware, family mediation is a process in which trained and impartial mediators help those involved in divorce or family breakdown to communicate better and to reach solutions acceptable to them both for the future, and which are the best possible for their children. National Family Mediation is the umbrella body for 65 family mediation services in England and Wales, which currently see more than 6,000 families per year throughout England and Wales, of which around one-third are referred by the courts.

1321
As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make clear, CAFCASS will assume the functions currently carried out by the Family Court Welfare Service, the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service and part of the Official Solicitor's Office. It will serve the Family Division of the High Court, county courts and family proceedings courts. It will safeguard and promote the welfare of children before courts dealing with family proceedings, provide advice and information to the courts and families, and, additionally, provide support to families. Everyone should welcome the creation of CAFCASS as the establishment of a consolidated child-centred service to the family courts which can be only beneficial to the well-being of families and children.
Clause 13 gives CAFCASS the power to make arrangements for other organisations to carry out specific functions on its behalf. It is intended that family mediation will be one such function, and National Family Mediation will be one of the organisations with which CAFCASS will make arrangements under Clause 13.
Family mediation services were initially established some 20 years ago, many at the initiative of local probation services concerned at the effect of divorce and lengthy legal battles on the children caught in the middle. In recent years, many family mediation services entered into contracts with their local probation service to provide family mediation at the initiative of the courts. This was part of the Home Office's commitment to probation services spending a proportion of their budgets on partnerships with the voluntary sector and undoubtedly contributed to the growth in the early 1990s of local services affiliated to National Family Mediation. More significantly, it enabled many disputes concerning children to be settled without the need for reports to be prepared by the Family Court Welfare Service, thereby saving significant resources for local probation services.
Many family mediation services now have contracts with the Legal Services Commission (formerly the Legal Aid Board). These provide payment—but, of course, only in respect of those clients who are financially eligible. While these arrangements will continue until the provisions of the Bill are enacted and implemented, transitional arrangements are being set in place so that the change to the new regime will occur as smoothly as possible. It is here that serious concerns arise.
National Family Mediation is finding that in this period leading up to the transfer of responsibility from the Home Office to CAFCASS, many family mediation services are experiencing severe cuts to their funding from what were Probation Service contracts. A survey of family mediation services carried out in February this year revealed a reduction that has already amounted to £103,000 for the network of services as a whole. This represents 10 per cent of the previous year's probation funding on family mediation work. In the past 12 months, funding by probation partners for NCH Action for Children has
1322
been reduced by £36,000. In addition, two services have been moved to what is called "spot funding" arrangements.
The financial impact of this change in funding patterns has served to undermine NCH Action for Children's ability to sustain its services. Historically, probation contracts have been for three years in order to facilitate service planning, growth and stability. Existing contracts are now for one year, negotiated in the autumn for the following year. Funding for the forthcoming year is, as yet, unknown. In these circumstances, forward planning for voluntary organisations to sustain this service is in jeopardy.
The reduction has also been exercised in a very inconsistent fashion, with some areas maintaining funding, others reducing it substantially and a small number cutting grants completely. It is most unsatisfactory for the services to find themselves in a position of financial insecurity at a time when they are required to sustain and adapt their provision over the next few years while the new CAFCASS infrastructure is developed.
Further, this coincides with the LSC plans to enter into long-term contracts with family mediation services based on the present level of funding. If current funding is dropping below the level at which the services are feasible, the financial basis of these long-term contracts will be unrealistically low. Altogether, this state of affairs makes financial planning very difficult indeed.
It is no exaggeration to say that, if matters are not improved and then stabilised, this invaluable service will be lost to the courts in the interim period before CAFCASS is set up. If this were to happen, the cost of re-establishing the family mediation service would be far higher than that of sustaining the current provision. It must be acknowledged that the Home Office, recognising that there is a problem, issued guidance as recently as 12th June with regard to probation funding, but I fear that this may not be enough.
In conclusion, my remarks are concerned with how we get from A to B. I seek an assurance that the Government have taken steps to secure partnership funding during the transfer in order that, at the end, we have a service which meets the needs that the Government have recognised in the Bill and which puts children and families at its heart.
5.27 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the Bill aims to increase confidence in the Probation Service and in non-custodial sentences; to unify and make consistent the three similar, though separately managed, services for the welfare of children within our court system; and to protect children from the appalling abuse from which many have previously suffered. It also purposes to reduce truancy, which greatly decreases the life opportunities of young people, puts children at risk of sexual exploitation and drug addiction and increases the instances of vandalism, public intimidation and

1323
crime. These are laudable goals. I share the concern of many noble Lords as to whether the Government have chosen the right means to deliver them.
I shall concentrate, however, on two areas of concern arising from my experience of working with young people. Is the Lord Chancellor's Department the office in which to place the children and family court advisory and support service? As I am sure we all agree, the Government were absolutely right to make the first priority of the new service the well-being of the child. Those who already serve children and families in the courts have a tremendously challenging job—and the guardians ad litem, the court reporting officers and the children's section of the Official Solicitor's Office have a high reputation for meeting that challenge.
Last week I spoke to a former child's advocate. She had moved from advocacy into research because she had not been properly supported. She had asked her employer, a charity, not to assign her to families with a history of violence towards women. In fact she was asked to interview a man whom she later learnt not only had such a history but was known particularly to hate articulate women in positions of authority, such as herself. I give this example to illustrate what can happen when a similar service to the one described is overstretched and to show the degree of personal danger that may be involved.
The Lord Chancellor's Department is of course greatly respected by all but it is far smaller than the Home Office. Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General reassure the House that the voice of the Lord Chancellor's Department will be strong enough to obtain the funding necessary to maintain a high quality, well-supported court welfare service? It would be a great step backwards if staff were to feel under-resourced in the future and were to leave the service for their own protection.
We have the highest divorce rate in Europe and we can anticipate a rising incidence of family breakdown. The court is seldom a good place to solve family disputes. As Judge Thorpe recently intimated, most families might do better seeking counselling and therapy rather than legal redress, or indeed the kind of family mediation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded. When a couple fall out they need to be helped to recognise their new role as parents pure and simple. In that context, is it helpful to bring CAFCASS into the purlieu of the Lord Chancellor's Department? In communicating to parents that family disputes are better settled out of court, would it not be better for the service to go to the Home Office or even to the Department of Health?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, went to great lengths to describe, the Bill makes welcome proposals to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. I beg the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, as he considers these measures and the regulations pertaining to them, to consider the need to encourage people, particularly young people and students, to consider voluntary work with children. I urge that as someone whose interest in
1324
children and families was greatly encouraged by my first experience of service in the community with children 15 years ago.
A survey for the National Centre for Student Volunteers found that 75 per cent of former student volunteers found work in the area of their community service and that the career of 40 per cent of them was completely unrelated to their choice of academic study. Clearly then voluntary work is an important means for students and young people to find their vocation. The most important protection for children is to have staff for whom childcare is a calling. Will the Minister undertake to do all in his power to integrate the new protections that he is providing under the Bill into a system which allows the absolute minimum delay in the processing of police checks? Young people have many demands on their time. There are more lucrative careers than the care of other people's children. It is vital that young people can taste the rewards of such work; to see it not as a last option but as a most fulfilling employment.
Such experience can also be the opportunity to know first-hand the children on society's margins, be they the children of the state, the children of sink housing estates or mentally or physically disabled young people. So this knowledge is immensely valuable. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General can offer reassurance on that point.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, there are a number of matters in the Bill which we on these Benches must welcome. The extension of electronic tagging, due to the developments in technology, will indeed make it possible for offenders riot merely to be kept within their own homes but to be prevented from making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere. I am glad to see those provisions in the Bill.
Similarly, the family court advisory service has been long awaited and is welcome. However, I share the reservations of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury about an advocate of that service also appearing as a witness in the same case. One wonders where the interests of the child will be in such circumstances.
The provisions for the protection of children are extremely welcome. Those who come from north-east Wales, such as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, cannot have anything other than a great deal of sympathy for any measure which prevents sex offenders having any contact with children. My only reservation about it is that we have as a society demonised sex offenders. They comprise a very broad category of people, from the fumbling adolescent who commits an indecent assault to the persons who committed the atrocities in Bryn Estyn and elsewhere in North Wales. The provisions in the Bill are welcome.
It is when one turns to other aspects of the Bill that reservations set in. As I listened to noble Lords today, I was musing about the punishments that used to be inflicted by our courts; how people would he put to

1325
death by hanging; how they would be transported; how they would be imprisoned with hard labour. People would be flogged and whipped. I recall my father, who was a policeman, telling me how deeply upsetting it was for the station sergeant who had in cold blood to whip youngsters pursuant to a court order.
We moved away from that. We developed alternative methods of dealing with young people. We realised as a society that many of the faults that we see in youngsters really reflect faults in a wider society for which we, together, are responsible. We adopted probation. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, referred to probation officers acting from a strong ethical basis. That is the ethos of the Probation Service. With that was coupled the judicial discretion—a discretion to which the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred—for magistrates and judges to impose sentences commensurate with the offence and commensurate with the degree of responsibility of the offender before the court. Probation has been part of the sentencing of the courts, as have, in the past 25 years, community service orders.
It may surprise those on the Government Benches when I say that probation in this country has been an overwhelming success. It is a system which has been developed. Anyone who has contact with the criminal justice system—as I, declaring an interest, have—knows that many youngsters who once went astray are today leading perfectly normal lives with families, jobs and careers, thanks to the intervention of the friendly and caring probation officer who gave them help at a very difficult time in their lives. Now, however, the Government call this, to use the words of the Minister, "a soft and ineffective option". Contrary to all the success of the Probation Service, which the Government ritually and frequently commend, it is now "a soft and ineffective option". The change was spelt out by Mr Paul Boateng in Standing Committee G when the Bill was going through another place. He said:
"We are moving away from a social work-type befriending model, and no one should be under any illusions about that. … we intend to focus the National Probation Service on law enforcement".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 4/4/00: col. 33]
Mr Boateng also said, at col. 36:
"No one should be under any illusions about the nature of the change and of the culture shift that we expect: it is a philosophical change".
When the noble Lord, Lord Warner, refers to the philosophy that lies behind the opinions expressed from these Benches and from those of the Official Opposition, he should appreciate that the "philosophical words" have come from a Government Minister in another place. It is the philosophy of the Government that has been changed quite deliberately.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he referred to "gesture politics". We have seen the politics of gesture exercised by the Prime Minister. Indeed, we have seen electioneering as we approach another general election. Both sides have
1326
been vying with each other to prove how "tough" they can be—that word was used three times by the Minister during his opening remarks on the Bill.
However, I think it would be a great deal more "tough" for the Government to demonstrate leadership by going against a press commentary that seeks to whip up public opinion and to change that climate of opinion so that people come to realise that, for the community and for individuals within the community, the greatest safeguards against crime are rehabilitation and reform. The best way to prevent crime is not to lock people away for lengthy periods—they will eventually come out of prison, so the problem is merely pushed back—but to use such time during which people may have their liberty taken away by doing something positive; namely, by using the resources of the state to educate and train those who have offended.
Lord Warner: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that difficulties may be encountered in trying to alter public attitudes towards crime when we are faced with the kind of situation I outlined in my contribution? Nine out of 10 people sentenced to community service orders breach those orders not only once or twice, but three times. With such high levels of breach, it will be difficult to persuade the public that action has been taken and that changes will be made.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I should like to be able to examine the workload for each probation officer, as well as that for prison officers who need to contend with 65,000 or more prisoners housed in buildings that were designed to accommodate far fewer people. The problem is that the resources are going in the wrong direction. As I said, I should like to see the Government demonstrate leadership and persuade the people of this country that rehabilitation and reform are the only way to proceed.
As regards the structure of the new national probation service, I concur with the criticisms made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. How will local strategies initiated by local people be developed? The Minister used those words to describe the new regime. However, the Home Secretary will appoint the chief officer, who may be at odds with the local board. It is inevitable that clashes and difficulties will emerge from that kind of system. What is the need for such centralised control? We have heard the word "fragmentation" used in this context. According to the Government, the Probation Service today is "fragmented". However, that reflects the philosophy of Edward I when he set out to conquer Wales and Scotland. He felt that the United Kingdom was "fragmented". I do not believe that there is any need to centralise. I strongly support local autonomy and putting responsibility into the hands of local boards to carry out what they believe to be appropriate and correct for the people they know in the areas they know.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the imposition of a prison sentence as once being considered the decision of last resort. Now,

1327
imprisonment is clearly the decision of first resort. I believe that we are following the American path here. More than 2 million people are currently imprisoned in that country, compared with 65,000 in this country.
I turn to the provisions dealing with drug abuse. My noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to "drug-ridden prisons". That comment brought to mind a person I represented in a manslaughter case. He was a heroin addict. It was alleged that he had injected his girlfriend with heroin. I asked him what it was like to be an addict, to be imprisoned and thus without access to heroin. He said, "There is no problem at all. It is easier to get hold of heroin inside prison than it is to get it outside". That is a chilling thought upon which noble Lords should reflect. We are sending people to drug-ridden prisons rather than maintaining them in the community where they can keep their jobs and maintain their responsibilities to their families and to the community.
It has been suggested that drug abstinence orders should he issued. That sounds all well and good, but they will be quite useless unless resources are made available for treatment. The Minister has acknowledged that there is a shortage of adequate drug treatment facilities in this country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, pointed out, a drug addict cannot stop taking drugs. If a drug abstention order is issued without support, it will be bound to fail. What will happen then? The offender will come before the court and he will then be sent to prison—to a drug-ridden prison where it is easier to acquire heroin than it is on the outside. Not only that, but by executive diktat issued under other legislation that we debated last week, the Government would like to see such an offender and his family lose their entitlement to benefits under our social security system.
Prison has been recommended not only for drug addicts, but also for parents. Under the new proposals, parents who are incapable of getting their children to school in the morning will go to prison for three months. What that will do to benefit the child, I do not know. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out, such a child will be taken into care. Alternatively, that child will be thrown out of the family home. I have had to deal with people who have been thrown out of their homes by their parents in similar circumstances.
It is claimed that these proposals are part and parcel of the youth justice reforms. However, to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, perhaps I may ask how many parenting orders have been made. How many curfews for 10 year-olds have been imposed? How many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued? These are gimmicks that have been tried out by the Home Office, no doubt supported by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, when he was a Home Office special adviser. All those ideas have failed to make any significant impact. In the mean time, fewer policemen are patrolling the streets and violent crime is rising. Despite that, even more gimmicks are being introduced by the Prime Minister without the benefit of any consultation. Over the weekend I was travelling extensively and I heard overwhelming laughter up and
1328
down the country at the suggestion that policemen should drag drunken louts to cashpoints to relieve them of £100.
The Government say that these measures are being tried in order to protect victims. Victims are to be at the heart of the process and at the heart of the Government's efforts. However, I shall take the words of the Government seriously only when they restore the link between common law damages and criminal injuries compensation paid to the victims of violent crime. The tariff system was introduced by Michael Howard, the then Conservative Home Secretary, after it was rejected as an illegal move in the courts and after it was attacked in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The then Shadow Home Secretary, Mr Tony Blair, opposed it bitterly in another place. It was opposed by the current Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw. But, after three years, what have the Government done to restore justice to victims? Absolutely nothing.
As I have said, parts of the Bill are to be welcomed, but much needs to be done to remove what I regard as positive excrescences from its content.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of the Bill. At the outset, I declare an interest as president of the Association of Probation Managers. Perhaps I may say also to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Williams of Mostyn, how much I look forward to working with him over the coming weeks. I have been living under a misapprehension about the workload of the Attorney-General. The noble and learned Lord graces this House almost daily with his presence, from which we all benefit, and he takes a close interest in much of the business taken on the Floor of the House. Now, as previously, the noble and learned Lord is helping out his noble friend Lord Bassam, and for that we are grateful.
Like so many organisations and respondents to the consultation that has taken place, we support some measures in the Bill. However, like other noble Lords, we find that many questions are begged and much clarification is required. Subject to the will of the House, I hope that noble Lords will accept some revision of the Bill during its passage through this House. Where measures in the Bill are designed to tackle crime and where they are deemed effective and enforceable, they will have our support. However, before referring to specific aspects of the Bill, I want to press the Minister on two other, related matters.
When pressed on why the Government had been more proactive when dealing with football hooligans who travelled to watch Euro 2000 football matches, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, lost no opportunity to blame Conservative Back-Benchers in another place for preventing a Private Member's Bill becoming law. The details of the accusation are debatable, but that is not my point. In answer to a Question in this House, the noble Lord said for the record that, had the

1329
measure to remove passports from known hooligans to prevent them travelling overseas been on the statute book, the Government would have used it.
The Government have entered their fourth year in office. If the Home Secretary had really wanted such a measure, the Government had only to include it in one of the many Home Office Bills that have passed through both Houses over the past three years; or the Home Secretary could have taken over the Private Member's Bill, which would have ensured its passage on to the statute book. Is it the Government's intention to bring forward an amendment to this Bill? If not, I am confident that such an amendment will be tabled, probably in Committee.
Secondly, it can hardly have gone unnoticed that the Prime Minister has once again chosen to discuss policy not in Parliament, not even in this country, but in Germany. This time, specific measures to deal with drunken and/or drugged hooligans and their behaviour on our streets are being contemplated, aloud, and before any consultation with interested parties. It is suggested that individuals are forcibly taken to the nearest appropriate cashpoint to withdraw £100—that is, if they do not have a spare £100 in their pocket.
There are so many questions that one must ask about the practical implementation of such a measure. Hooligans usually operate in groups. Who should be arrested—all of them? Some may, some may not, have the ability to pay. Some may respond without resistance; some may not. Who will determine the level of behaviour that would trigger direct punishment by the police? Who will resolve on-the-spot disputes about who is displaying the offensive behaviour? What is the policeman expected to do with the cash when he has collected it? Most significantly, where are the numbers of policemen or police women who can afford to be distracted from their duties to deal with the time-consuming business of marching one or more drunken hooligans to the bank? How would accountability for such direct punishment be dealt with? Will the Minister tell the House whether such a measure is likely to be added to the Bill, or what the next steps are likely to be?
Not only is the Bill being discussed against the background of much hand-wringing within the Home Office; it also coincides with a rise in street crime and a serious fall in the number of police officers. In London, the situation is very serious indeed. The Home Secretary has frequently commented that crime doubled under the previous government. What the Home Secretary conveniently does not say is that crime rose during the whole of that time throughout the western world. However, under the previous government, the tide was turned: the number of policemen was expanded by 16,000, and crime fell in each of the last four years of the previous government's term of office. However, since 1997, police numbers have declined and crime is increasing. I understand that we may learn this week that street crime continues to rise. Forgive my cynicism, but I cannot help feeling
1330
that yet another No. 10 summit, following the Prime Minister's visit to Germany, and the efforts of the spin doctors have more to do with masking a growing crisis.
The creation of a national probation service and a free-standing children and family court advisory and support service are to be welcomed, although there will be matters of detail to be explored in Committee and on Report. I want at this stage to pledge my support—and to express my long-standing support—for the Probation Service. My complaint about the Probation Service when I was responsible for it was that those in the service were their own worst enemies. They did a thunderingly good job, and given the kind of people with whom they had to deal one would not have wanted to be in their place. Sadly, they did not stand back sufficiently to tell the world about what they were doing. I believe that that has changed—it was certainly changing before I left office. More and more, the service was inviting the public in, talking with the public, and displaying the way in which it was working and how effective its services were.
Clause 15 allows staff of the family courts advisory service to conduct litigation in all courts with rights of audience. Clause 16 allows for CAFCASS officers to act as witnesses. That has been referred to in the debate. There is huge concern about the proposal, in terms of non-lawyers representing children facing legal representation for other parties as well as in terms of conflict of interest, where an officer acting as advocate for the child is then questioned as a witness. The interests of the child should be safeguarded; however, I am not sure that the Bill as drafted does so. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to clarify, and if possible allay, our concerns. If not, we shall return to this issue.
There is also concern over paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 1 in regard to the position of the Chief Probation Officer nationally and the local chief officers. They cannot serve two masters. If they are not employed by the boards and they are accountable to the Home Office as set out in the Bill, local accountability and line management will be affected and I am afraid that confusion will reign. I hope that the Minister will consider amendments on this issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, "local boards" is a frightful name. It does nothing to convey the work of the Probation Service at a local level. I hope that it will be changed—and I hope that it does not give way to the acronym "LOBs"!
The ownership and management of property as proposed, based on a much-criticised report, is also causing concern. The boards, if they are to be effective, should have control over the staff, finances and premises. To regard the control and management of property as a distraction, as the Home Office does, is to misunderstand and to confuse completely the interaction between procurement and the use of buildings with the work of the service on the ground as a justice agency managing difficult and potentially dangerous people. Special factors, such as group workrooms, reporting centres, the isolation of difficult and dangerous people, the need for security systems,

1331
and the juxtaposition of premises to neighbours, plus the all-important relationship to landlords, are crucial. Local input, control and ownership of decisions are essential. I hope that the Government will rethink this matter and that they will take note of the strong case put by the Central Probation Council.
There are many questions to be addressed on the financial arrangements. First, when additional powers are conferred on the Probation Service, it must be given the resources to deliver that service effectively. Also, local authorities presently have borrowing powers on behalf of the Probation Service. Is the Minister able to tell us whether, when that arrangement ends, borrowing powers will be extended to the boards? What flexibility and powers will boards have to buy and sell services from and to other bodies; for example, partnership organisations, and the voluntary, statutory or commercial sectors? These are all daily activities for the Probation Service. We shall consider the tabling of amendments on these and other related issues. The stability of the service as a result of these changes is important. Therefore, any further reorganisation, whether of the service as a whole or the redrawing of boundaries, should be subject to primary legislation.
We shall examine the very considerable central control and powers of patronage proposed for the Secretary of State. I note that in another place Mr Paul Boateng said that any move to alter or restrict these powers,
"Would Constitute an undue fettering of the Secretary of State's discretion".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 11/4/00; col. 83.]
I suggest to the right honourable gentleman that that is for Parliament to decide.
I return to family court issues. The National Family Mediation Service, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seeks an assurance that the Government will secure partnership funding during the transfer of assets from the Home Office to CAFCASS. It is also concerned to know how funding is to be assessed to ensure that there are adequate resources for referred family mediation in each conurbation and how the funds are to be allocated.
We welcome the Government's acceptance of our proposal to include assault occasioning actual bodily harm in the list of qualifying offences in Schedule 4. I also look forward to the Government fulfilling their promise to my honourable friends in another place to include amendments which will increase the maximum sentences for child pornography offences. We shall want to consider further the arrangements for disqualification orders. In particular, we remain concerned that they are be used only for criminals who are sentenced to 12 months or more. Your Lordships will be aware of the high profile case of the singer Paul Gadd, better known as Gary Glitter. Despite being in possession of thousands of sickening images of children, he received a sentence of just four months and so would not have been eligible for a disqualification order. The arbitrary 12-month cut-off includes no discretion for judges to impose disqualification orders on those sentenced to less than
1332
that. As my honourable friends said in another place, it might be better if such a discretion was on the face of the Bill.
We also believe that the list of offences in Schedule 4 should include dealing drugs to children. We shall want to look further at the range of occupations from which offenders will be disqualified. Is the Minister in a position to say anything about plans to merge, or not to merge (as the case may be), the inspectorates of prisons and of probation? Could the idea have anything to do with the removal of Sir David Ramsbotham, the current Chief Inspector of Prisons? Does the Minister accept that the two services are sufficiently important and distinct to warrant separate inspectorates and that consideration should be given to an independent inspectorate for probation?
As was made clear in another place, the Opposition support the Government's proposals on the drug testing of criminal suspects but are concerned that they may not go far enough. The other place debated at length the issue of testing for class B as well as class A drugs. Your Lordships will doubtless want to explore that issue in Committee.
Another concern is that the list of trigger offences in Schedule 5 is too narrowly drawn. We accept that drugs are a major factor in property crime, but they can also play a part in violent crime. In another place my right honourable friend Ann Widdecombe referred to the case of Christopher Tilling who was gaoled for 12 years for manslaughter after setting fire to a house and killing a seven year-old child in return for £200 to feed his drug habit. If the Government are to break the link, as they put it, between drug habits and crime—we do not dispute that aim—they should look at extending the mandatory testing provision to all serious crime, not just acquisitive crime.
The Government amended the Bill in another place to conform with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables. We continue to grieve for the family over the murder of their small son Jamie. The nation felt a sense of revulsion at such a dreadful crime, the effects of which are still felt after a decade. However, we remain concerned about Clause 56 which was not part of those changes. The Government will need to provide an unequivocal commitment that young offenders aged between 18 and 20 will not be dumped with older, hardened criminals in adult prisons. We shall seek to make clear the Government's intentions in this vital area of penal policy.
In a debate in this House on 10th April the Minister agreed (at col. 9) with my right honourable friend Michael Howard that prison worked. However, that contrasts with the early release scheme introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act. More than 2,000 criminals have now been released before the half-way point of their sentence. We welcome the belated change in Clause 60 to exclude sex offenders from that scheme, which was called for two years ago, but we disagree with the fundamental objective of the scheme which is to give convicted criminals a get-out-of-gaol-free card. Those sentenced to six months are being

1333
released in six weeks. Thousands of robbers, burglars, violent criminals and drug dealers are being granted the privilege of special early release. How can it be honest, transparent or just for criminals convicted of some of the most serious crimes, including manslaughter and attempted murder, to serve less than half the sentence handed down by the judge? We shall table a number of amendments in Committee. Your Lordships should be in no doubt about the strength of the Opposition's feelings on this matter. On return to office we have pledged to abolish the early release scheme.
Turning to Clauses 38 to 40, we believe that the renaming of the community orders is change for the sake of change. Much has already been said on that matter. As to Clause 41 which is concerned with exclusion orders, can the Minister explain to the House whether the tagging and tracking equipment is sufficiently developed and technically robust to be used on offenders who are forbidden to enter a specified area?
As to Clause 42, can the Minister tell the House whether rehabilitative treatment will be a condition of a drug abstinence order? That point was made by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in an excellent speech. Without some form of assistance to break the habit of drug taking, the failure rate is certain to be even higher.
I turn next to Clause 48(4) on page 33. Referring to paragraph (b), can the noble and learned Lord clarify, by giving examples, what constitute "exceptional circumstances"? If an additional 25,000 people go to prison, which I understand is the estimate of the Home Office, is that cost included in the financial appraisal? If so, I have not been able to detect it.
As to paragraph 18 of Schedule 1, will the Minister consider the strengthening of the complaints procedure?
I assume that the rationale for the increase in fines for failure to attend school is to introduce the penalty of custody, as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Seccombe. Hardly anyone—I believe no one has been fined the maximum of £1,000. Therefore, increasing the penalty will only increase the likelihood of a breach, which will then give rise to an increase in custodial sentences. Is the total cost of that taken into account, and is it the most effective way to deal with these mothers?
There is not time for me to speak in more detail about breaches of community sentences which will attract custodial sentences. However, as suggested by the Association of Chief Probation Officers, if there was greater certainty that a return to court would follow every breach, that a hearing would take place without delay, that appropriate penalties, including prison and curfew orders, would be imposed and that every breach would attract a penalty, the public would be better protected, and repeat breaches would probably be reduced. It is not just the Probation Service that is at fault here. I am aware that conscientious probation officers who tried to carry out
1334
that level of enforcement have taken young people back to the court and the magistrates' response has been, "Are you saying that you have brought this young person before us simply because he arrived home last night one hour late? Don't waste our time". If the Probation Service is to do its work, it must be supported by the courts as well.
The approximate cost set out in the financial memorandum is £457 million. However, I suggest that, within that, the cost to the Probation Service of these additional responsibilities is underestimated. As to the estimate of £100,000 for the protection of children measures referred to in paragraph 154 of the Explanatory Notes, that is extremely optimistic. It would just about pay for one year for the services of Alastair Campbell in No. 10; and that does not include his on-costs.
The assumption of a 50 per cent deterrent factor as a result of imprisonment for breach of a community sentence order is too optimistic. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. That figure has been built into the savings factor. According to paragraph 164, all the extra funding, another £0.5 billion, is to come from the departmental budget. Is the noble and learned Lord able to say whether it is new money; or is to be taken from the budget? If so, which services will forgo funding as a result of the funding of these measures?
Finally, the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee recommends that powers in Clauses 41, 42, 45 and 46, which allow for amendment of the Bill to increase the severity of sentencing, should be omitted. I agree. For such serious changes, primary legislation is the appropriate vehicle. If the Government do not heed this advice—I believe that the House will display its usual concern it would be a break with the convention of this House not to accede to the considered deliberations and advice of that committee, the work of which is valued greatly by your Lordships.
As has been said by so many, the new national probation service and the separate child court welfare service are to be welcomed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, described well the degree to which the Bill is centrally controlled and centrally driven, especially in relation to the national probation service. I agree. That has come to be the hallmark of the Government; Bill after Bill passing through this House is testimony to that. I predict that many days will be spent revising and improving the Bill. I look forward greatly to being back on Home Office territory.
6.11 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful tone of the debate. It was set at the outset, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the value of the Probation Service. I hope that in the past I have shown myself to be as powerful a supporter of its good work as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I share one thing at least in common with the noble Baroness,

1335
Lady Blatch: we both have responsibility for probation and prisons. When one works in that field, one cannot but feel a sense of humility about the work that is done.
I should say immediately that my noble friend Lord Bassam did not say that community sentences were a soft and ineffective option. He said that they had often been regarded as such; and perception is sometimes important. It is also true, unfortunately, that the outcomes in different probation areas have been patchy. As my noble friend Lord Warner pointed out, in some areas breach after breach goes without sanction. In other areas the outcome is much better.
Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the two inspectors, Sir Graham Smith and Sir David Ramsbotham. Sir Graham Smith was the first to insist that national standards should be set and adhered to. He was the pioneer in the document Evidence-based practice, and had the foresight to say that that document would be valuable for three years and we must then scrutinise it again. I have always said that Sir David and Sir Graham were admirable public servants. I have said that on every public occasion when Sir David has been present with me on the platform. I always encouraged him to be an irritant, although I never found him irritating. It seems to me that the purpose of an inspector is to be an irritant. I say this about both of them. They are notable public servants and both had their terms extended: Sir Graham when I was probation Minister and, shortly after I left—there is no necessary connection—Sir David's term was similarly extended. So any ill-informed comment in the press is grossly unfair to both those public servants, who have done, in my opinion, excellent work.
On these occasions I am always reminded of the gloomy baggage that invests the word "but". Almost all of your Lordships have said that this is quite a good Bill—and then I wait for the inevitable "but". Most noble Lords have said that it has much excellent quality. I should like to follow what I have sought to do in the past. If amendments are consistent with the underlying philosophy and capable of improving the Bill in that context, I am more than happy to approach these matters with an open mind. My noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Bassam and I are perfectly happy to have meetings on any convenient occasion to discuss specific worries or queries that any of your Lordships has. We want to make the Bill as good as possible.
Many questions have been raised. Some are quite deep. I should like to give a good deal of thought to the questions and consider answers in correspondence in due time. Whichever noble Lord I reply to, I shall ensure that a copy is sent from the Home Office (I intrude somewhat into the territory of my noble friend Lord Bassam) to all noble Lords who have spoken; and copies will be placed in the Library of the House. However, I shall do my best to deal with particular aspects.
No title can be given to any new organisation which is free of possible misunderstanding. As your Lordships constantly referred to the children and
1336
family court advisory and support service, I reminded myself that it is spelt CAFCASS and riot "Kafka's". (I felt that I should say that because someone is bound to pick it up!) CAFCASS offers a substantial opportunity for the future. A number of noble Lords referred to it as being a possibly enormous significant advance.
My noble friend Lady Thornton asked about start-up costs. The funding for those has been identified. The transfer of funds for the new service will reflect the historical budgetary spend by the three amalgamating services. Future funding—I say this more generally about other questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—will depend on the outcome of the current government spending review and I cannot pre-judge that, although I think that it has been fairly widely published in the newspapers that announcements are imminent this month or early next. I cannot go beyond that at this stage.
The Lord Chancellor sees CAFCASS as critically important in looking after the interests of children. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked the Lord Chancellor was likely to be a doughty fighter for necessary funding. All I can say, without breaching confidences, is that at any funding discussion between colleagues which I have attended with the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor has normally been successful. If I were a betting man (which I am not) and I had a spare £5 (which I have not) I would place it on the Lord Chancellor.
One of the questions, raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was the apparent tension between Clauses 15 and 16 in the advocacy rights of a non-legally qualified employee of CAFCASS and the possibility of cross-examination. Clause 16 makes plain that cross-examination cannot be available simply because the advocate is acting as advocate by virtue of Clause 15. I hope that that is a reassurance.
A question was raised about a possible tension between the interests and the desires of the child. Many of us, being parents, have frequently understood that there may be a tension between the views of the child and his or her best interests. That is commonplace in the minds of professionals who have to deal with children. One cannot say dogmatically that the child's views must always be paramount because it is part of the wider context of evidence upon which one draws to see where the best interests of the child lie. We are determined that these two apparent tensions can he reconciled; and the professionalism of the CAFCASS will have great input into, I hope, successful outcomes.
A number of noble Lords referred to the training of CAFCASS staff. The CAFCASS project team is working at present. It is seeking the advice of organisations representing the judiciary, the legal profession, voluntary agencies and court users. CAFCASS will work within national standards and a national training programme and will have a system of independent, regular inspection.
That comment about taking the view of the judiciary brings me conveniently to a question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The

1337
Home Secretary is in continuing, current correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice. It would not be appropriate for me to read out the correspondence at this stage without having the express permission of the Lord Chief Justice, but I can say that in the Home Secretary's last letter, dated 30th June—which is why I am able to say that it is current correspondence—his manuscript note at the bottom says:
"I am of course happy to discuss this with you further if you or [Lord Justice] Rose continue to have concern".
Some of the concerns expressed relate to Clause 48, which I come to immediately. Clause 48 has been misconstrued. Clause 48(3) introduces Section 2A and has a filter, to which I think none of your Lordships referred. It states:
"Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below apply if the responsible officer is of the opinion that a person aged 18 or over…has failed"—
and I underline these words—
"without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of an order".
The dual filter is there. It can only refer to someone over the age of 18 years and the responsible officer has to come to the informed conclusion that it is a failure without reasonable excuse. A warning is then given. New Section 2A(5) states:
"A warning under this paragraph must—(a) describe the circumstances of the failure".
Therefore the offender is in no doubt. It has to state that the failure is unacceptable and it has to say that, within the next six or, as the case may be, 12 months, "if you fail again, you will be liable to be brought before a court".
I respectfully suggest that that is not unreasonable, unless the public is to continue to believe and to hold the perception—to which my noble friend Lord Bassam referred—that this is soft and ineffective. One therefore has to have a breach or a failure without reasonable excuse; the offender has to be over 18; the warning has to be given; then back to court where, unless there are exceptional circumstances, imprisonment must be ordered. Not for three months, however. One has to look at the words. The term is, "not exceeding three months". There will not be 25,000 extra persons in prison at any one time. I respectfully suggest that it pays to read Clause 48 with care before coming to alarmist conclusions.
Perhaps I may turn to the observations of my noble friend Lady Stern on Clause 2. I think I may call her my noble friend because we almost always agree and, when we disagree, it is normally because she is wrong. I am now ducking!
What Clause 2 says is wholly unexceptionable and indeed to be commended:
"This section applies to—

(a) the functions of the Secretary of State under this Chapter:

(b) the functions of local boards, and officers of local boards, under this Act or any other enactment".

1338
What is an officer of a local board? That is found in Clause 4(4) which states that,
"any member of the staff of a local board appointed to exercise the functions of an officer of the board, and
(b) any other individual exercising functions of an officer of a local board".
What must they do? In Clause 2, when they are carrying out their work, either as Secretary of State or functions discharged under him, or when they are discharging the functions of local boards, they must do three things. That is hardly surprising or objectionable. Clause 2 continues:
"In exercising those functions the person concerned must have regard to the following aims—

(a) the protection of the public:

(b) the reduction of re-offending;

(c) the proper punishment of offenders".

I find nothing objectionable or strange there at all—particularly as I agree with the distinct sub-text of my noble friend Lady Stern and indeed what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia. In some circumstances the protection of the public and the reduction of reoffending may depend on the rehabilitation of offenders; but not in all circumstances.
This Bill is not the first on the agenda set out by the Home Secretary. It is building on the work of the Crime and Disorder Act. I paraphrase the philosophical underpinning of that Act in this way. The purpose here is to intervene early; not as was foolishly and almost childishly described in some newspapers as the Home Secretary wanting to send children to prison at the age of 12. It is to stop them falling into crime so that they do not become persistent offenders at the ages of 17, 22, 25, 36, 47—until they mature or just give up committing crime.
Another purpose is to make community sentences not only effective but apparently effective. They are sentences. They are necessary consequences of crime having been committed. It does no one any favours, least of all the young offenders, for them to think that they can breach, and breach, and breach again.
I did not know what my learned friend Lord Warner was going to say, but if what he describes is correct—and we all know it to be correct—letting a young offender offend, breach and breach again, for half a dozen times without an effective sanction, is actually doing them a serious harm. It is also doing the public a serious harm.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, urged us not to treat this as a political football, and I hope that I am not doing so. With the best will in the world, however, I cannot see that a discussion of football hooligans and cash points is within the ambit of this Bill. In answer to the question as to whether it is to be amended in that connection, I do not believe that it is.
The typical characteristics of the young offender are: coming from a home which is dysfunctional; with a life which is not ordered; without education; without employment; and, significantly, some abuse of drugs or alcohol. The belief we have—perhaps shared by many of your Lordships—is that the vital component

1339
which is lacking is order: the order which comes from school, from education, from discipline. We do not do very well at the moment. We insist that children are educated from the age of four to 16, at colossal expense. Those of your Lordships who have visited prisons will know that two-thirds of the young men in prison cannot read and write sufficiently well even to complete a job application.
This is a determined strategy. It will not please everyone. As I have said on earlier occasions, it is a matter of perfect indifference to me as to whether a person is a lawyer or whether they live in Hampstead. In t he past I have pleaded guilty to the first charge but never to the second. I would rather go to the message, however, and not to the messenger.
I believe that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is right: we ought not to make a political football of these matters. It may of course be possible to improve the Bill. I repeat—and hope that it will be accepted—that if there are amendments by way of improvement, consistent with the general philosophy, we will look to them.
The areas which it seems to me have been commended by your Lordships in this Bill are CAFCASS—with general if not with perfect applause—and the area which deals with children. I ought to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that sitting as a justice of the peace obviously retards the ageing process. I was amazed to hear her say that she had had a letter requiring her no longer to sit!
Some queries are raised as to whether Clause 48 is too strict or rigorous. I do not think that it is. After all, a community sentence, as described by my noble friends Lord Bassam and Lord Warner, in a sense is an alternative to imprisonment. If it is to be an alternative, it has to be a serious alternative. It is not to be regarded as not a sanction by way of punishment. I know the judicial argument, expressed in its purity by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that this is in some way interfering with the independence of the judiciary. I fundamentally disagree. It is taking away some of their power, but it does not affect their independence as judges. We have mandatory sentences and I agree that they are limited. Here one has a parenthesis by way of escape in Clause 48.
There is no doubt that we shall debate these matters at some length. I believe that that is appropriate because—and I say so without disrespect—it is what your Lordships do best. There is a better quality of informed debate in this House than in some other places—and of course I am not thinking of the House of Commons.
A number of questions were asked about the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and they were reflected in subsequent speeches. The Select Committee said that it was not happy with the measure but that if it is in the Bill it should be by way of affirmative resolution procedure. We have examined the issue and we believe that the Select Committee is right; the powers should be subject
1340
to the affirmative resolution procedure. We shall table amendments to the Bill so that the alteration of maximum and minimum periods of community orders are subject to the scrutiny of this House through the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that your Lordships will accept that as an appropriate and prudent response to the questions which were raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Furthermore, we considered that we should go further. We intend to extend the principle by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1998 so that changes to the period relating to curfew orders are also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If one makes the first change, one should go further and make the second. There are precedents for the alternative. We have thought about the issue carefully and I was personally grateful for the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in indicating the preliminary view of the committee. I hope that your Lordships will consider that to be a decent response to those issues.
Many other questions were raised today. As I said at the outset, I want to give thought to some of the deeper ones and undertake to send the letters quickly. Fine questions as to finance may take some research. However, others, such as the borrowing powers, I can answer straightaway: they are specified in the Bill as being subject to the Secretary of State's powers of direction.
I am conscious that my 20 minutes has run out but perhaps I may make one final comment. As regards local accountability, I recognise that your Lordships' concerns are of worth and validity. However, I submit that they are met in Schedule 1 because paragraph 2(4) on page 46 states:
"Regulations may make provisions as to their appointment".
The important provision is paragraph 2(5), which states:
"Regulations must provide, so far as it is practicable to do so, for the persons appointed to be representative of the local community in the board's area and to live or work (or have lived or worked) in that area".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he accept that a eunuch is a eunuch whether he is local or not?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I expect that it would depend on two issues; first, the nature of the eunuch and, secondly, the nature of the area. And I hope that the noble Lord is not making snide references to Hampstead!
Sometimes one feels that one cannot win on these occasions. We put forward regulations specifying that local people must be represented and then the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, says that that is not sufficient. The measure is made and it recognises the importance of local involvement in the provision of local service. What we will not return to, and what we have set our face against, is local services which have been so patchy that some outcomes have been the object of reproach to all of us and have done a significant

1341
disservice to those young people for whom the Probation Service has historically cared so well. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Television Licences (Disclosure of Information) Bill
6.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disclosure of information]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out (", at the request of the BBC,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I want to give a general explanation of the two main objectives underpinning all the amendments standing in my name at the Committee stage. The first objective is to probe the effectiveness of the methods which the Government have chosen to police the system which will give people aged 75 and over the right to have a television licence without paying for it.
The second objective is to ask questions about what appear to be potential flaws in the operation of that system, especially with regard to the electronic communication of information, and thereby to consider whether improvements should be made to the Bill.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the Bill will become law; we shall not oppose it. However, we believe that we need to ensure that it works as effectively as possible. I should make clear that all my amendments tabled at the Committee stage are probing.
I have tabled Amendment No. 1 in order to ask the Government why they adopted this particular system to police the applications for free TV licences. Clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the legal authority to supply social security information of prescribed kinds to the BBC. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State may do this,
"at the request of the BBC".
However, if the release of information takes place only at the request of the BBC, the following questions should be addressed by the Government. First, does the Bill give authority to the Secretary of State to transfer relevant information wholesale to the BBC as soon as he is in possession of it? What are the costs of doing that? Are there more effective ways of managing
1342
all the information? What are the implications for those individuals—few there may be—who do not own TV sets now and never intend to do so?
Perhaps I may examine those questions briefly in the hope that the Government will be able to answer them today. The first question relates to the practical issues of how the information will be managed. In another place, my honourable friend John Greenway elicited some information from the Government. However, further questions need to be asked. Can the Minister explain how the database will be set up and when and how information will be transferred to it? The answer may seem obvious: you just hand over the database and off you go in setting up the system; but the Notes on Clauses indicate that the BBC will receive an electronic copy of information held on the databases of the DSS and the Northern Ireland Department. At what stage will that electronic copy be sent to the BBC? Will it be at Royal Assent or between that date and 1st November?
Moreover, after the database has been set up, will the changes in individual circumstances be updated on a weekly, daily or concurrent basis? Will the interface between the system set up by the BBC contractors and the DSS be so compatible that there will be a complete flow of information from the DSS as soon as it receives it? The change in circumstances should be only a new address, a death or the fact that the person has reached the age of 74.
I have visited the DSS headquarters at Newcastle, which holds national insurance information, and was impressed by the effective work that was done and the dedication in keeping the information accurate and up-to-date. However, I am aware that of necessity there is a time lag in the notification of information to them and the time that it takes to update their systems. Of course, I am also aware that not everyone in the United Kingdom is on the national insurance system and that that system can produce errors. Therefore, how do the Government expect all those issues to be resolved?
My second question is more brief and concerns the costs of the system. At Second Reading my noble friends Lord Luke and Lady Fookes, who is in her place, asked questions about the costs of setting up and maintaining the system. As they pointed out, the Government's estimates seem to vary considerably. Indeed, in another place the Minister admitted that, as a result of the final structure of the scheme, the updated estimates given by the Government are likely to be higher than their earlier estimates. That seems to imply that the Government have decided on a scheme which is more expensive to operate than others would have been. That is despite the fact that in another place the Government argued that other methods would have been more expensive. There is confusion here and I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on the final costs of the scheme.
What other schemes were investigated by the Government and why were they found to be wanting? Why was this one the winner in the stakes? Finally, what is the effect of the Bill on people who do not own

1343
a TV or, indeed, on those who perhaps have a TV but cannot get a signal? There are many areas in this country where one cannot receive an analogue signal. Can the Minister say what is the current estimate of the percentage of the population who live in such areas?
The general problem faced by people who do not have a TV set was raised by Mr Mark Valentine, who wrote to me. I quote from his letter:
"I am now additionally concerned at the proposal to permit TV licensing access to social security records. Why should people who don't own a TV, and therefore [having made a deliberate decision] have nothing to do with TV licensing, find that their social security records are open to the scrutiny of this organisation?".
He is concerned as to why his details should be available when he will simply never have a TV and will not apply for a TV licence. What is the Minister's answer to Mr Valentine and others who share his concerns? I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a fascinating speech but it bore no relation whatever to the amendment before us. However, I shall take it on its own terms and say as little as I can about the amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, did not refer and try to deal with that to which she did refer.
Of course, I recognise the underlying theme which is behind a whole series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. That theme, to which I believed she returned in the last minute or so of her speech, is understandable concern about the disclosure to outside bodies of personal information held by government departments for social security purposes.
Before I deal with her specific questions, I want to assure the noble Baroness that the Government fully accept the need to ensure that only information which is strictly required is disclosed and that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent misuse or unlawful disclosure. In response to the amendment, perhaps I may make it clear that Clause 1 does not give the BBC or its contractors the right to require information to be supplied, nor control over the range of information that may be required. It provides only that the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland department may, on request, supply social security information but will be under no obligation to do so. That is one of several safeguards incorporated in the Bill.
Neither the Secretary of State nor the Northern Ireland department will be able to supply information to the BBC unless it has been prescribed by an order which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative resolution procedure. I believe it is well known that the only information which will be required will be a person's name, address and age—that will apply also to 74 year-olds—in order to make the listing adequate for the next year, and the national insurance number as a unique identifier. Once the information that can be supplied has been prescribed, a request from the BBC or its contractors will be required before the information can be released.
1344
However, the discretion as to whether or not to do so will rest with the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland department.
Clause 2 provides that the information supplied under the Bill may be used only in connection with television licences for which no fee is payable or reduced-fee licences. Under Clause 3, it will be a criminal offence to disclose information supplied under the Bill without lawful authority. I believe that we shall return to that theme when we deal with later amendments.
The words,
"at the request of the BBC",
could be deleted from Clause 1 without affecting the way in which the transfer of information will work in practice. However, they have been included as an extra reassurance that the data will not be issued unless needed by the BBC for use in connection with free or reduced-fee licences.
I turn to the issue of how the BBC will handle the data. Of course, the BBC is already used to handling personal information when administering the television licensing system. That includes, for example, notification of purchases of television sets. The BBC believes that its contractors are well acquainted with the importance of security and accountability. It has confirmed that it fully recognises the new responsibilities which the Bill will place on the corporation and its contractors.
I understand that the BBC intends to revisit all its contracts in order to ensure security and accountability in relation to the administration of the over-75 concession. It will write to the chief executives of the contracts, bringing the provisions of the Bill to their attention and requiring them to submit a signed acknowledgement of the obligations and responsibilities that the new legislation will place on them. Those acknowledgement letters will be updated annually.
To that end, the Secretary of State will, in addition, be concerned to ensure that effective systems are in place. A memorandum of understanding between the DSS and the BBC is being prepared. It will require the BBC to handle DSS data in a secure environment to the same standard as that which applies in the DSS and in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act. I shall return to the relevance of that Act in relation to later amendments. I hope that I have answered questions which might be raised in relation to the wording of the amendment.
I now move on to questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as to whether this is the best possible way of achieving our objective to provide free television licences for people aged 75 and over. In case it is not clear already, perhaps I may make it clear that our fundamental starting point is that it would not be possible to make this concession by asking old people—those aged 75 and over—to put themselves forward for the concession and then to prove that they were entitled to it. We considered what would have to be done in terms of producing evidence of age—whether by a birth certificate, a passport or anything

1345
else—and concluded that it would be quite unreasonable to place on people of 75 and over the burden of proof as to age. Therefore, we rejected all systems which would have made that necessary.
We then turned to a system in which the onus to provide the evidence was placed on us, having considered the fact that the Department of Social Security already has that information. The system ensures that a very limited amount of information is provided to the BBC for a very limited purpose, as set out in Clause 2. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether that would involve a wholesale transfer. Yes, indeed; a bulk transfer takes place of the specified information relating to people aged 74 years and over. That will enable the BBC to set up a database against which all applications can be checked.
The noble Baroness will know that applications are being made via a mailing that has already gone out, at least in part of the country, to everybody with a television licence, inviting them to respond. All the information provided will be checked in bulk against information on the DSS database. It would be impossibly bureaucratic and expensive to seek information from the DSS every time an application for a free television licence was made.
The noble Baroness also asked about the arrangements for updating the register—whether it will be done weekly, or even daily—and the costs involved. The data transfer arrangements have not been finalised but we expect that details of how the information will be supplied to the BBC or its contractors will be set out in a memorandum—or memoranda—of understanding between the BBC and the Department of Social Security and the relevant Northern Ireland department. Taking into account the mailings, the new computer system, advertisements, literature, radio and television trails and field force visits, the BBC is expecting to spend approximately £24 million.
The noble Baroness's final question was about why the details of those who do not own a television or cannot receive any transmissions should be passed to the BBC. There are two ways to answer that. First, the information is being supplied in bulk, not on an individual basis, so nobody is being picked out. Secondly, if no query is made against the database because no application is made, the information will go no further and will be maintained under the control of the BBC in conditions as secure as those in the DSS.
I have a couple of answers about the frequency of data downloads. We intend to update the records of live over-75s every November, with a monthly update for deaths.
Baroness O'Cathain: I was gratified to hear some of the responses to my noble friend's questions. It would be too big a burden to ask the over-75s to provide the information, particularly for those who are disabled in any way. The mentally impaired might watch television a lot but would not be able to fill in a form. Some people cannot read or write. I am happy with the Minister's responses on that.
1346
The BBC will apparently be spending £24 million on mailings, field forces and other items. I am told that the BBC is not awash with money and needs every penny that it can get, so that is quite a lot of money for it to spend. As I understand it, the BBC has to request the information from the social security database. That could be done in one telephone call because the information will be sent in bulk. Surely there is no need to get people to apply or for the BBC to spend any money. Am I being completely stupid?
Someone who has never had a television set and never wants to watch television will still, willy-nilly, have his information sent to the BBC. The Minister has not given a good enough answer on that. People feel strongly about their social security information being given to anyone other than a government department.
Lord Lucas: I am concerned about what the Minister said about how data will be handled. In his previous existence he was involved with businesses that handled data. I am sure that he knows that one principle of data handling is never to duplicate anything. Running duplicate databases causes endless hassle and pain, yet the Government are planning to run a massive duplicated database. The poor old BBC will be up to 12 months behind with address data. Old people do not just grow roots and stay in the same place. There will be all sorts of occasions on which the address data held on the computer are wrong. That will generate a manual query on each occasion. Even death data are likely to be a couple of months out of date, which will generate another host of manual queries to be sorted out on the telephone. It is a recipe for chaos, confusion and difficulty.
Surely anyone in business would run a little query to the DSS over the Internet asking whether the information that they had on the people applying for a reduced or zero-rated television licence matched DSS records. That would require a simple yes or no answer and the information need never leave the DSS. The information about my bank account does not leave my bank when I stick my card into an ATM belonging to another bank. The machine merely asks whether I am good for the money. Rather than shifting databases around the place, people run queries into them. Why are the Government going against all good practice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall try to reply to all those points. If the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has further points that she wants me to reply to, I shall do so afterwards.
I was relieved to hear the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, say that she basically thought that the system was fine and that, for the reasons that I explained, we should not ask people to fill in forms and justify themselves.
The £24 million will not be a cost to the BBC. It will be reimbursed by the DSS. The BBC and the DSS are in an impossible position when people ask whether that sum is justified. They have been criticised elsewhere—although not here today—for spending

1347
too much but they would be just as strongly criticised if they were not doing enough to promote the concession and ensure that everybody knew about it.
The alternative that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, seemed to be proposing was that the BBC should issue the free licences on the basis of the database provided by the DSS without requiring any application. That would not be appropriate, because there would be potentially millions of free licences swanning around the country, possibly because of errors in the database. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; all databases are rubbish. That is a basic law of data processing. They all need to be de-duplicated and corrected in many ways. If we simply relied on the database without requiring an application, a significant proportion of licences might be wrongly addressed or not claimed. That would be disastrous and we would be severely criticised.
7 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: At one stage, the Minister said that a person who cannot write or is not capable mentally of applying for a TV licence will be able to obtain one. How will that be possible if there is to be no application? My proposal is that if a person is in receipt of a DSS application, the name, age and address will be known. Therefore, it may be possible to send out a form which says, "Ask someone to take this to your local post office for a television licence".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not the application which is the problem; proof of qualification is the difficulty for old people. I do not know how many Members of the Committee have seen the form. I have received a form at home and it is very easy to deal with. There really is no difficulty about it. It is quite possible for anybody else in the household to complete the form on behalf of an old person. It will then simply be checked against the database.
The noble Baroness then asked me again about Mr Valentine, the correspondent of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. That absolutely minimal information—name, address, age and national insurance number—will go onto a BBC database rather than onto a DSS database. But it will not be interrogated unless somebody makes a claim. Mr Valentine will not make a claim; his details will stay in the BBC database with all of the same conditions relating to security and confidentiality that apply to the DSS database and will never be used. I suggest to the Committee that that is a more efficient system than going from the BBC to the DSS each time there is an application.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was suggesting that we should keep the database in the same place. I do not care where it is kept physically and I do not even know physically what it consists of. Those matters are beyond my ken. But for information which is held by the DSS for social security purposes to be used for another purpose by the BBC, whether it is used in DSS or BBC offices or the offices of BBC or DSS contractors, is a step which requires primary legislation. That is what this Bill is about.
1348
I can correspond with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the technical details for as long as he likes. But it must be done in that way because we must observe proper rules about the protection of public information. We must observe the Data Protection Act 1998 and we must observe the rules of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
Lord Lucas: The only piece of information for which I should like to trouble the noble Lord by letter is the rate at which people over 75 change address. How many people aged over 75 change their address in an average year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry, I failed to answer that. The reason that it is done once a year is because the licence is issued for a year. If a person changes his address, he takes his licence with him. Deaths, which would affect the validity of the licence, will be updated monthly.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I am not understanding the process. If I apply, being over 75, for one of the free licences, I must connect myself with a particular address. If the database of the BBC, being out of date, has me at my old address, that will generate a query. That must be dealt with manually by someone ringing up the DSS and saying, "Has this old codger moved?"
I want to know the number of those exceptions which are likely to be generated in a year. I am sure that that is data which the DSS can supply, given some notice, because that is something about which the wonderful new system can be interrogated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that I can write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about that. After all, he is describing what will happen at the very beginning of the system when it is introduced for the first time. I do not know the answer. But this is a better system than one which involves individual searches of the DSS database. It is much better to have the bulk transfer which I have described.
In any event, verification by the DSS will involve disclosure of information. That is why we have introduced primary legislation.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for answering the questions of my noble friends at that point. It has certainly helped to shorten my response.
First, the noble Lord rather took me to task and said that I had asked a series of questions which had nothing to do with my amendment. In my defence, perhaps I may say that my amendment sought to strike out the words,
"at the request of the BBC",
and since the Government's own legislation shows that the BBC comprises all the contractors who are operating the data system, I feel that I was right to pose the questions which I did.

1349
I am grateful to my noble friends for raising specific questions about how the database will operate. I am not too encouraged that even the Minister was moved to say that all databases are rubbish. I must remember that in future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should just like to say that my experience that all databases are rubbish comes from the private sector.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Saved by the bell! The Minister answered some questions with regard to the specific transfer of information; for example, change of address, when people become 74 and when they die. I shall read very carefully what he said in response to those questions. I am still not completely convinced that the interface of information transfer will work as effectively as it might.
I am concerned also that the Minister said, I believe, that the precise system by which the transfer will take place has not yet been worked out. However, later, when messages had been passed to him, he gave the Committee some answers in relation to that. He referred to the fact that a memorandum of understanding would be worked out with regard to the transfer of information. There will certainly be a later amendment which refers to what I thought was a different memorandum of understanding.
At present, the costs of transfer of information are estimated at £24 million for the first year of operation. And yet, the details of that transfer have not been worked out. Therefore, I am unsure whether that estimate of the cost can be accurate. We may wish to return to that matter. But at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("includes") to end of line 8 and insert ("a person or persons employed by the companies providing the BBC with services in connection with verifying that a person who applies for a television licence for which no fee is payable is entitled to hold it").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear who will have sight of the information which will be transferred from the DSS to the BBC and its contractors. When we last debated this matter, there was some mention of just who will see this information.
After all, Clause 1 authorises the transfer of information and subsection (2) extends the definition of the BBC to include persons providing services to it. The Notes on Clauses explain to us that that is simply because, in practice, much of the administration of the TV licensing system is carried out on behalf of the BBC by its contractors. The particular company concerned is Envision. It was awarded the contract for the administration and enforcement of the licence fee just about a year ago and its shareholders are the Post Office subsidiary SSL, the WPP Group and Bull Information Systems Limited.
Later, I have other amendments which deal with questions about how those particular contractors will operate. But at Second Reading the issue I raised, to which I return now, is the fact that the definition proposed by the Government in Clause 1(2) is so wide that in practice it could conceivably include even the post office counter clerks who play a part in processing applications for TV licences.
At that stage, the Minister sought to reassure me and said that that was absolutely not the case and that that could not take place. He said that post office counter clerks will not have access to any confidential data. Of course, I accept the Minister's assurance on that. But if that is the case, why is the Bill written in such a way that there could be a much broader definition? Would it not be better, perhaps, to find more felicitous wording so that the intentions of the Government are absolutely clear, and therefore make clear that only those people who are involved in the verification of the applications should see that DSS information? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I anticipated some of the answers to the amendment in my response to Amendment No. 1. However, there is no harm in setting out the stall. I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, both now and at Second Reading, about making sensitive personal information freely available to people working within the television licensing system who have no good reason to see it. As the noble Baroness said, I reassured the House at Second Reading that post office counter clerks would not have any access to confidential data. I am grateful for her acceptance of that assurance. However, clearly it has not reassured her on the wider issues. That is fair enough.
There are two possible interpretations to the amendment. However, the effect would be that the DSS and the Northern Ireland department could supply information only to the BBC and persons employed by companies providing the BBC with services in connection with verifying entitlement to a free licence. That is what the amendment states.
That could mean two things. It could mean that information would be supplied only to companies providing the BBC with services in connection with verifying entitlement to a free licence and nothing else. That would mean that nobody could have it because the contractors to the BBC who will be handling this information provide the whole range of TV licensing services to the BBC. Alternatively, it could mean only those who are providing the services, although they could provide other services. If that is the case, the amendment is unnecessary, because that is what the Bill states.
I reassure the noble Baroness that in practice the DSS and the Northern Ireland department will provide information only to those companies which the BBC has confirmed are involved in the administration of free television licences or any future prescribed concessionary scheme, which is what Clause 2 states.

1351
Information will not be provided unless the DSS and the Northern Ireland department are satisfied that the contractor requires it for the administration of the concession. If the contractor then released it to anybody else—another contractor who did not genuinely need it for that purpose—the first contractor would fall foul of Clause 2 and Clause 3 on offences, so the amendment is unnecessary.
The amendment could make it difficult to operate the verification system. As I have said, in practice, the BBC's contractors provide a range of services. That would create great difficulties. I am sorry to have to say what I do say on occasion to the Opposition Front Bench; that is, that the amendment is either unnecessary or it could be extremely damaging. I hope that it will not be pressed.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I certainly have no intention of trying to find the best answer. It sounds as though I have proved how difficult it is to find any wording which closely fits the Bill. I am grateful for the assurances given by the Minister with regard to the intention that those people who will have sight of the information will be only those involved in carrying out the verification process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("information") to ("obtained") in line 11 and insert ("about the age, addresses, date of birth, and National Insurance number of persons aged 74 or over, and about the date of death of such a person,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. In a sense, the amendment has been previewed in our debate on Amendment No. 1.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that there is, on the face of the Bill, a definition of the categories of information which could be transmitted to the BBC. On at least two occasions the Minister has referred to the fact that one does not need to worry too much because the information that is to be transferred from the DSS to the BBC will be closely defined and confined to age, address, death and national insurance number. The Minister also referred to the fact that the information will be defined by an order.
I thank the officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport who put copies of the draft statutory instrument in the Printed Paper Office and, indeed, ensured that Front Bench spokesmen have had an advance copy, for which I am grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And, indeed, all those who spoke at Second Reading.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was not aware of that. I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. However, having read the statutory instrument, I am even more puzzled about why the Government
1352
decided to avoid putting that list of information on to the face of the Bill. Why leave it to a statutory instrument? I am concerned that the reason may be that there are plans further to expand the scheme about which, at present, the House has no knowledge. That may not be the case. There may be no such intention on the part of the Government. However, by failing to make clear such information on the face of the Bill, the Government raise the suspicion that more information could be transmitted than is currently admitted to be the case. The Explanatory Notes refer in general to "social security information", which could be all the social security files. At Second Reading and today the Minister made clear that he does not intend that to be the case. However, some of the statements by him have referred to other prescribed information which might have to be included. We are certainly led to believe that the information currently referred to may not be the only information to be transferred.
Perhaps I may refer to a second, entirely different issue which is also raised by my amendments. Noble Lords may have thought that I had allowed a misprint in my amendments to go through. In listing the information to be made available to the BBC, I stipulated that included should be the addresses, in the plural, of people aged 74 or over. The Government's intention is to hand over only the principal address that is registered. My purpose is simply to ask the Government whether they intend that the benefit of a free TV licence will be enjoyed only by people who are 75 and over at just one address. That seemed to be the implication of what the Minister said at Second Reading when he referred to "principal address".
On the first occasion when I began to think about it, the answer to the question, "Why only at one address?" sounded obvious. But are there not circumstances in which people who live as members of the same household might be allowed to claim in respect of more than one address? I refer, for example, to a person aged 75 or over who has a holiday home and might spend six months in each and consider both to be his home. Or—this might be considered rather frivolous but it has a serious import too—perhaps one works in London during the week and then goes on to one's principal home at the weekend. After all, I am advised by the Library that 38.8 per cent of Members of your Lordships' House are aged 75 or over and therefore could benefit from this particular payment.
If the Minister responds that the Government's intention is not to give this benefit to people who are not financially in need, my question will be: in that case, why have they made this a universal benefit, not linked to need? More seriously, and perhaps more reasonably, what about the position of a husband and wife who live apart, perhaps because one is seeking medical attention in the area where the other cannot live? Are those two households to enjoy the benefit of a free licence?

1353
These are detailed questions. I realise that the Minister may not have had the opportunity to consider them at this stage. However, I should be grateful if he could answer as far as he may at this point. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes: I thank the department for giving the information about the draft order, which was most useful. But although I was pleased to receive a copy of the information, I am still concerned that we should need it at all.
It is an important principle that, as far as possible, information in relation to a Bill should be on the face of the Bill unless there are extremely good reasons for it to be otherwise. I am not at all clear why this fairly simple information should not be on the face of the Bill.
I had not thought about the question of addresses, but am intrigued by the points raised by my noble friend Lady Anelay and shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Lord Avebury: In moving this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, prompted me to ask a question, the answer to which I hope is fairly simple; that is, what happens to gypsies or those who are of an itinerant way of life? They may have an address on a local authority or private site which is licensed for that purpose. They may then move away from that site, particularly during the summer for work of an agricultural nature and then come back during the winter. But there are other people who, because of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, do not reside on a fixed site. They move around the country from one tolerated site to another or may simply live on the verge of a roadside where the local authority allows them to remain.
If a person aged 75 or over is in one of those groups, presumably they are just as entitled to a free television licence as someone who lives in a bricks-and-mortar house. However, they may not have an address which they can supply to the BBC or Department of Social Security which would qualify them for the purpose. What are we to do about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I start with the last point first and will come back to the other issues.
I assume that King Lear was over 75 years of age. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he gave most of his castle to Goneril and Regan, and would have given it to Cordelia if she had answered the question in the way that was intended. He and his retinue—be it 20, 10 or one—live in a little part of his castle. They visit Goneril and they visit Regan, and if Cordelia was not living on the streets, they would go to her as well.
It is not our intention that King Lear should have more than one free licence. It is our intention that King Lear and everybody else over the age of 75 should have a free television licence at their principal address. There is nothing new in that. That is exactly what
1354
happens with people who are paying for their licence. They have a licence at their principal address. If they want a television set somewhere else, they have to pay for that as well.
Our assumption is that people will have a free licence at their principal address and that Goneril will not benefit when Regan is looking after her father, and that Regan will not benefit when Goneril is looking after her father. That is entirely reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to gypsies. I do not know what they do at the moment in relation to paying for a television licence. I assume that on the date they apply for a television licence, they have an address. That address is used for the licence and they carry it around with them. At least they do not have two different places, one for the weekend and one for during the week. They move themselves lock, stock and barrel from one place to another. I assume that that works perfectly well for television licences. We do not feel that there is a problem in relation to principal addresses. We mean the legislation to cover the principal address.
However, I am relieved to learn that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is content with the parliamentary scrutiny which is proposed in this Bill in the sense that the information is not being left to the Government to decide; it has to be prescribed by order. What she is not content about, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is not content about—I understand their concern—is why we should not place the information on the face of the Bill when I have already stated what it is going to be.
There is a need for the degree of flexibility provided by secondary legislation. Clause 2 states:
"'Reduced-fee licences' means television licences … for which a reduced fee is payable: and — which fall within a prescribed category".
In other words, theoretically it is possible to extend this scheme for the transfer of information from the DSS to the BBC for any future scheme that there might be of a comparable nature. We have no intention of introducing such a scheme. But we would not want to have to introduce primary legislation if at some time this or any future government wanted to do so. We are confident that the information set out in the draft order is enough for the smooth administration of the current scheme. The way that we envisage the scheme working depends on the interface between the BBC's current licensing scheme and the DSS database as currently structured. We cannot rule out the possibility that one or both of those sets of information will be restructured at some time in the future in such a way that the interface no longer works exactly as proposed at present.
As I said, we do not want to rule out the possibility, at some time in the future, of introducing different reduced-fee schemes, either to replace this one or in addition to it. It would be short-sighted to arrange matters so that a technical Bill of this sort were required if any such changes to the scheme were made. We believe that secondary legislation is the most

1355
appropriate method in this case where details may change without upsetting the principles which will be fully debated in the course of the passage of this Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his answer. We seem to have been dwelling on two forms of "principle". The first is the principle of what information should be on the face of the Bill and the second is the matter of the principal address.
With regard to what information should appear on the face of a Bill, Opposition parties will continue to disagree with governments as to how far that should go; and no doubt we shall return to that issue. I was particularly interested to hear the Minister say more clearly perhaps than was said in another place that there may be occasions on which different schemes need to be introduced, or may be planned by the Government to provide reduced-fee licences. That may be something we shall discuss further when the future of broadcasting and the licence fee itself are discussed.
I was intrigued by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to gypsies and to how those who were itinerant in general have access to benefits such as this. I confess it is not a question to which I had applied my mind; I should have done so. I shall certainly follow up that issue between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not supply information to the BBC under the provisions of this section unless he is satisfied that effective systems are in place at the BBC to prevent accidental or unlawful transmission of the information or unlawful obtaining of the information.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11.
This group of amendments addresses the question of how secure the transfer and the storage of information will be as it flows from the DSS to the BBC's contractors. In relation to Amendment No. 5, the intention is to make it clear on the face of the Bill that it should be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place before he agrees to release it to the BBC and the contractors.
The Minister referred briefly to the fact that the Secretary of State should have the duty to ensure that proper systems are in place before the information is transmitted. After all, the Secretary of State has been given information for one purpose and it is now being used for another by the contractors of the BBC. The concern is that their information technology systems may not come up to scratch. At Second Reading the Minister sought to reassure me on this point. He said:
"The regime proposed for BBC subcontractors is exactly the same as that used by the DSS, which for many years has used subcontractors to process the data in question".—[Official Report. 15/6/00; col. 1846.]
The point that I am trying to get across is that surely there is a difference between the past experience of the DSS and that proposed in the Bill. Previously the DSS has had direct contractual contact with its own sub-contractors; in other words, there has been a direct interface. But under the Bill the relationship of the DSS with the BBC's contractors is indirect—it is on a loop via the BBC. So the BBC faces towards the DSS in one direction and in the other towards its own sub-contractors. My concern is: how can we make sure that the link between the DSS and the sub-contractors is secure enough to ensure that the transfer of information is properly made?
The Minister said earlier that the way in which the Secretary of State would relate to the sub-contractors would be set out in a memorandum of understanding between the DSS and the BBC. My question in that respect is posed simply to obtain information because I do not know the answer. What is the legal status of the memorandum of understanding? If such a memorandum is produced, what recourse does either party have if it is not adhered to? I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise if in my enthusiasm to answer Amendment No. 1 at some length—because I was trying to anticipate the range of the Opposition's concerns—I probably answered quite a number of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has now raised.
Amendment No. 5 would prohibit the Department of Social Security from supplying information to the BBC under Clause 1 unless it was satisfied that effective systems were in place to protect that information from accidental or unlawful transmission or otherwise from being unlawfully obtained. But both the BBC and the DSS are bound by the Data Protection Act 1998, which must be adhered to when data are being processed. In particular, the eight data protection principles must be observed. We do not have to say so in the Bill because that is an overriding obligation.
Principle 7 states:
"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data".
As I said in response to Amendment No. 1, the Secretary will be concerned to ensure that effective systems are in place to that end. A memorandum of understanding between the DSS and the BBC is being prepared. It will require the BBC to handle DSS data in a secure environment to the same standard as applies in the DSS and in accordance with the principles, especially Principle 7, of the Data Protection Act. When that memorandum of understanding has been produced, I undertake to send it to all noble Lords taking part in this debate. I shall also place a copy in the Library of the House.
However, there is a further point that the noble Baroness raised regarding what legal sanctions apply. Clause 3 of the Bill makes it an offence to disclose the

1357
information supplied by the DSS "without lawful authority". This provision and the penalties that apply are designed to protect the information in the same terms as would apply if it were protected in the hands of the DSS. It has been modelled on Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992—of which we shall hear more—which prohibits unlawful disclosure of social security information by DSS employees and others.
Therefore, the effect of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 is that information from the DSS can be supplied either to the BBC or to persons supplying services to the BBC; and we have already covered that ground. To protect this information, subsection (1) of Clause 3 provides that anyone to whom information is supplied under Clause 1, defined in subsection (1) of Clause 2 as "a recipient", is guilty of an offence if he or she discloses the information without lawful authority. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 provides that anyone who could, in practice, get the information—either the BBC, a contractor or the staff of either—is also capable of being charged with an offence.
Taken together, Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11 would simply replace the expression "a recipient" with the words "the BBC". But in the Bill as drafted "a recipient" is simply a label for the person receiving information under Clause 1. Therefore, if we were to change that label as proposed in these amendments, it would have no practical effect. The offences would cover the same people as is the case at present.
Both the Government and the BBC are keenly aware of the need to secure proper security for personal information. The Bill limits the use to which this information can be put and provides stringent penalties for unlawful disclosure. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to check with the Minister whether my understanding of the flow of information—and, indeed, the flow of money—in this business is correct. The BBC or its contractors receive the database. They receive applications from members of the public which they check against the database. If the person is entitled to a free licence, he or she is given one. The BBC or its contractors notify the Government in some way that the free licence has been given and the Government then give them the money for it. Am I correct in that assumption?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, that is right.
Lord Lucas: In that case, two further questions arise. First, if this information did leak out, what use is it? Are we merely talking about a privacy matter here or is there a use that can be made of this information? For example, could the person holding the information use it to extract money in some other way? Alternatively, is it information that is entirely without consequence, except for the knowledge of the addresses of, say, elderly people, which might lead to them being
1358
mugged, or something? Are we talking about something of real financial consequence or something that is just an issue of privacy?
Secondly, what check can there be to ensure that the BBC and its contractors do not collude vastly to inflate the number of free licences issued, thereby increasing the revenue to the BBC and presumably splitting the amount between them? I presume that the Government will have no right of audit, so who will check the process?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord's first question was whether there is a real risk. I have a very nasty mind and I can think of all sorts of risks. I can imagine being a burglar and wanting to go round and burgle people aged 75 and over. I can also imagine being an insurance company that, say, wants to sell annuities to people aged 75. So there is a real risk here. It is not just the fact that we must do it because it is the law and because that is what the Data Protection Act says. In any case, a fundamental principle of the way that public service works in this country is that we do not use other people's information for purposes for which it was not intended. I have no problems about what we are doing in that respect.
I am sorry. I was so enthusiastic about the noble Lord's first question that I have forgotten the second one—
Lord Lucas: Thinking the impossible, I had in mind that the BBC and its contractor could start putting in a lot of false claims about the licences issued.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, collusion. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a very suspicious mind; and quite rightly so. There is no more reason why the BBC and its contractors should engage in collusion than the DSS and its contractors. The rules are the same; the audit procedures will be comparable; and there will be the same controls as exist in any other case. The BBC is independently audited and the National Audit Office has jurisdiction over licence fee collection. I cannot think of any new opportunity arising here for criminal activity.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I was intrigued by the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Lucas with regard to the use of information. Between now and the Report stage, I shall certainly want to follow up some of the implications of how information might be used. Indeed, it might be more wide-ranging that I previously considered.
I was also most intrigued by the way that my noble friend Lord Lucas brought in the issue about potential collusion, or otherwise. I almost thought that he was about to propose that the BBC might not be audited by its own auditors but might perhaps be brought within the Government Accounts and Resources Bill. However, as the Minister has reminded me, we shall consider that Bill tomorrow.

1359
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will place a copy of the memorandum of understanding in the Library of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Use to which information may be put]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I have given notice that I intended to oppose the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. However, the grounds on which I did so have now been addressed fully by the Minister in his comments on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I therefore have nothing further to say with regard to Clause 2.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 24, after ("he") insert ("knowingly").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 12. These amendments address a problem that arises out of the terms of Clause 3, which makes it an offence for certain persons to disclose the information we are discussing without lawful authority. The noble Lord referred briefly to that matter.
This would on the face of it seem a sensible and straightforward provision. However, I am worried that the special circumstances that can be involved in the electronic communication of information mean that individuals could fall foul of these penalties without intending to breach the terms of the Bill.
Amendment No. 8 refers to "a recipient". Amendment No. 11 seeks to amend Clause 3(2), which states,
"A person who is or has been employed by a recipient, or engaged in the provision of services to a recipient".
However, the objective of both amendments is the same; namely, that one should be guilty of an offence only if one knowingly discloses that information.
At Second Reading, the Minister tried to reassure me with regard to the dangers of accidental disclosure. Then as tonight, he was in a literary mood. He said that if one is reckless or just plain stupid one can easily release information by accident. He illustrated the point by quoting from the latest Philip Roth novel—that is rather more up to date than "King Lear"—in which a character sends an e-mail but by mistake clicks on the wrong button and sends it to everyone in her university department with some embarrassing results. I argue that mistakes can happen in electronic communication even where the sender is neither reckless nor plain stupid. The accidental disclosure that I am considering is far more complex and would not be the fault of the sender, nor indeed of the recipient, if it were forwarded unintentionally.
Someone who is employed by BBC contractors may receive an e-mail but, unknown to that person, his PC is infected with a virus which may be far more complex than the "Love Bug" virus, which attached itself to the address book. The virus attaches itself to their Outlook programme or equivalent and automatically directs the PC to forward all received e-mail to whoever has been in contact with that PC. Should one be guilty in that situation of an offence under this Bill when one has not knowingly transmitted the information?
Amendment No. 13 provides a different solution to the same problem. I have tabled it to enable all the options to be disposed of in one go in Committee. It would extend the definition in Clause 3(4) of what constitutes a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that the noble Baroness refers to Amendment No. 12, not Amendment No. 13.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg the pardon of the Committee; I am speaking to Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 12 provides a different solution to the same problem. It extends the definition of what constitutes a defence. It would mean that if someone disclosed information to someone who had the authority to receive it under the terms of Clause 1 and then the information was transmitted onwards in error—or perhaps because of a failure of the Internet service provider's own systems—he would have a defence to the absolute offence that is created in Clause 3(1).
I have provided two alternative solutions to give the Government the opportunity to say whether they intend that someone who has transmitted information unknowingly should be subject to penalties along with those who knowingly transmit information. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I ought to start by referring again to the Data Protection Act and Principle 7, which states:
"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data".
Clearly, the implications of the offence in Clause 3 go further than is strictly implied by Principle 7 of the Data Protection Act. However, we must consider this matter from the point of view of the people whose personal data are being used in the circumstances that we are discussing.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 7 and 10—and of Amendment No. 12 through a different route—would be to make it easier for those covered (that is, the BBC, or one of its contractors, or the employees of the BBC or one of its contractors) to get away with disclosing the information supplied by the DSS under Clause 1. This is because an offence under the amendment would be committed only if the action of disclosure was a deliberate act. It would mean that a careless or

1361
thoughtless person who released information accidentally in any of the ways which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has described, would not commit an offence. It would mean that if the person thought that the information had been obtained in some way other than under Clause 1, he or she would not commit an offence by disclosing it. It would mean that a person who thought, however unreasonably, that he or she had lawful authority to release information, would not commit an offence.
I understand the fear that someone who is not fundamentally a bad person might find himself or herself having committed an offence which could send them to prison, without having had the slightest intention to do so. However, if personal information is disclosed, the person affected (whose personal information it is) may not care very much whether the disclosure was malicious or accidental, careless, negligent or reckless—the damage is done, although the damage is not of the same order as I mentioned when I quoted from a Philip Roth novel. My fundamental point is that degrees of culpability are best left to the courts to consider and to reflect in sentencing. An action that was clearly carried out unknowingly would be unlikely to attract a severe penalty.
The Bill as drafted preserves an important principle; namely, that personal information should be protected. It protects it in the same terms as it would be protected under Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which was passed by the previous government. That section makes it an offence for an employee or former employee of the DSS to release personal information obtained in the course of his or her employment.
The defences in Clause 3 are the same as those in Section 123 of the 1992 Act. It is a defence for a person charged with the offence to prove that the disclosure was made in the reasonable—even if mistaken—belief that he or she was making the disclosure with lawful authority, or that the information was already public. One would be able to use that defence provided one had deliberately considered the question of whether one could disclose the information and had decided on reasonable grounds that one could. The Government believe that the clause as drafted strikes the right balance between the flexibility that the courts need to have and defences which are comparable with those which apply under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. We do not think it desirable to accept the amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was interested to hear that reply. One becomes a victim when one's personal information has been released. Whether that was done accidentally or not does not matter too much to the victim. However, the question of intent goes to the heart of whether one is prosecuted rather than to the heart of the level of penalty that is
1362
imposed. Between now and Report, I shall want to consider further what the Minister has said about that.
Lord Lucas: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is in English law a concept of "culpability". I have listened to his arguments and clearly the concept of "knowingly" is wrong in this case. But, when a person is dealing with information of this kind, there could be occasions when it is stolen from him in a way that he could not reasonably prevent. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, it seems that he will acquire a criminal record when a court may consider that he should not have one. Is there not a let-out for someone who a court may ultimately consider is in no way to blame for what happened? I presume that, under the Government's new system, he will not have a jury trial—and therefore there will be very little option for a jury to fail to convict because it thinks that the person is blameless. Should there not be at least some let-out to enable a court to say, "No blame attaches to this man; we shall not convict him", rather than for a court to say, "We convict him, but we shall let him walk free"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have moved away from my level of competence in the law. The only mantra I have on this is that ignorance of the law is no defence. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, after taking legal advice about degrees of culpability, which I accept is the phrase that I used.
Lord Avebury: Does the Minister agree that in the circumstances described by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the Crown Prosecution Service would not bring charges against somebody who is the victim of a virus which caused his or her system to transmit personal information to an unauthorised person without their knowledge? How could anyone be charged with an offence under those circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That sounds reasonable to me; but, not being a lawyer, I shall not comment on it from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted that the Minister is prepared to trust his liberty to the Crown Prosecution Service and the wisdom thereof. I shall bear that in mind on future occasions.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This issue certainly bears further examination between now and Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a very important question about whether or not one can expect the CPS to take a particular action. The only thing I learnt overall as a magistrate was that one could never anticipate what the CPS might be expected to do; but that is another matter.
Clause 3(1) creates an absolute offence. The CPS might be in some difficulty if it knew that an offence had been committed and decided not to take action; it might be taken to task for that and its decision

1363
reviewed. Like the Minister, I am not a lawyer; I need to take further advice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Liability of directors etc.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling the next amendment, I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 13 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("any neglect") and insert ("negligence").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
As has been made clear by the Deputy Chairman of Committees, these amendments are, to some extent, contradictory. Again I have tried to assist the Committee by bringing forward at this stage all the amendments that might reasonably be considered in order that issues may be disposed of now, and not brought back on Report.
These amendments seek to give the Committee an opportunity to examine the effectiveness of Clause 4, which was inserted into the Bill at a late stage, at Third Reading in another place. It therefore may not have had the full scrutiny there that one might normally expect.
Clause 4 extends the offence of unlawful disclosure to cover company directors. I support the intention behind that. Clause 4(1)(b) states that if an offence committed by a body corporate is attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer, then,
"the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence".
Several problems may flow from this. In another place, my right honourable friend Douglas Hogg pointed out that because the Bill uses the words "attributable to any neglect" on the part of a director, and because the offence is a neglect of duty, it will be necessary, first, to define the director's duties before it is possible to determine what a neglect of them would be. So what is the duty? Can the Minister say to whom the duty is owed? Is it a duty of confidentiality to the BBC, to the Secretary of State, or to the original provider of the information?
Another problem flows from the use of the word "neglect". On its own, "neglect" perhaps has far too wide a meaning. It will penalise officers of a company who, perhaps, because of a dishonest or incompetent employee or processor, fall foul of the Bill. It could be over-burdensome on business.
As currently drafted, the word "neglect" defines a failure to do what? Is it perhaps a failure to supervise other people; or perhaps a failure properly to police internal guidelines on the processing of information? It
1364
is not clear. The Government should be clear about this before penalising an officer for a failure to do something.
There is a great deal of difference between the meanings of the two words "neglect" and "negligence". "Neglect" implies that one omits to do something that one is required to do; whereas, to me, "negligence" implies that perhaps I do something but I do it only badly or in part. "Neglect" surely means "omission", but not necessarily "negligent omission". In order to judge whether one has done one's duty negligently or in part, one comes back to the original premise: one needs to know what one's duty is. What advice have the Government received on this point from their lawyers and from the Institute of Directors?
Amendment No. 14 refers to the words "wilful or deliberate". The amendment seeks to give some protection to an officer who is acting in good faith. It provides that he will be liable to prosecution only if his neglect or negligence is either wilful or deliberate. It suggests a need for some intent by an officer of the body corporate before he can be guilty of an offence. I return to my original intention in the last group of amendments—that is, to ensure that people who are trying to do their job properly are not prosecuted under the Bill. After all, we are trying to catch the people who are doing wrong, not those who are trying to do their work well.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to obtain from the Government a clear definition of what they consider to be an officer of the company. What do they mean by the definition in Clause 4(3), which refers to,
"or a person purporting to act in any such capacity"?
Do the Government intend it to cover consultants to a company? What about non-executive directors who, strictly speaking, are not employed by the company? What do the Government say about the position of shadow or alternate directors who may be third parties appointed by a director and not employees of the company? Who is meant to be covered by Clause 4? I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to support my noble friend in this group of amendments, even though one or two of them contradict each other.
This is a completely new area of responsibility for company directors. They will be handling social security information—or, at least, they will be ultimately responsible for an organisation which handles social security information in a semi-commercial or commercial world. The responsibilities on company directors are getting more onerous by the day. There is no question but that unless people really go into the nuts and bolts of their responsibilities, and unless those responsibilities are clearly defined, fewer people will be willing to accept these onerous jobs. It is important that people should realise the duties of directors, but in this case those duties must be spelt out.
It is nothing like dealing with a normal commercial organisation where one has information. One has responsibilities in terms of one's customers. For

1365
example, if one is in a grocery distribution business one has to make sure that everything is done to ensure that customers are not poisoned by the groceries that one distributes. If one is in the airline business—both of my examples come from experience on my part—one has to make sure that, as far as is humanly possible, safety comes first. To that end special committees of the board are set up for air safety, ground safety or whatever.
In this area, which is a completely new area, where government information which is solely in the hands of civil servants will now be used by contractors to the BBC, one just needs to know the responsibilities of the directors of those contracting companies; otherwise, there could be a real problem in terms of the liability of the company directors.
8 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The responsibilities of the directors and the contractors are the same in respect of this information as they are regarding the information about their own employees. They are bound by the Data Protection Act. As the Minister has already explained, the principles of the Data Protection Act, particularly Principle 7, govern the behaviour of the contractors and they have to take appropriate measures to see that this information does not get into unauthorised hands, just as any information of a personal nature within their own companies does not get into unauthorised hands. Therefore, I do not see that the responsibilities that are being placed on directors are any more difficult or onerous than those which they already undertake as directors of their own company.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can go further than that in disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. It is not just that there is an analogy between these obligations which a director has to his own employees; this formulation is exactly that which is used in Section 115 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It is not new. The wording is the same as has been in force for eight years. It has not caused any of the problems to the Institute of Directors or anyone else that the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady O'Cathain, seem to think it might cause.
The fact that we are using the exact wording used in 1992 means that it was dangerous to change the wording because it might be assumed that we were implying something different, which we certainly are not. The word "neglect" is perfectly clear. There is not a significant difference between "neglect" and "negligence". Neglect means that, if someone fails to do something that he ought to have done, he has been careless. It is clear enough that directors must exercise their management responsibilities in a way that ensures that all data are kept confidential. It would be impossible to define all of their duties because all companies are different. The roles of individual officers in a company will also vary. All disclosures will happen in different circumstances. The expression
1366
"negligence" is no more precise than "neglect". It may have some different meaning in some other circumstances, but it still does not say what the duties are. The same is true about "wilful or deliberate" disclosure. If we were to introduce that and not have it in the 1992 Act, we would have a difference on which someone would seize and which could mean that the degree of protection provided for people's personal data, with which I think and thought we were all concerned, would be weakened.
Finally, I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, had to say on Amendment No. 15. I was not clear whether she meant that it should apply to non-executive directors or shadow directors. If she does, all I can say is that it ought to apply to non-executive directors because non-executive directors share a responsibility for the activities of their company. "Shadow directors" is a concept used in company law for people who are not directors, and do not purport to be directors, but are listened to by the real directors. Under certain circumstances in other cases they can be liable and they ought to be liable here.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his final words about the Government's views as to who should be caught within the remit of Clause 4. I think that that takes us forward in a helpful way, which was not achieved in another place. I still have some concerns about the Government's attitude towards the definitions of "neglect" and "negligence", but I think that is to be resolved on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Orders]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Bill [H.L.]
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Reduced fee television licences: residential care accommodation]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("1(b)(ii)" and insert ("1(b)(i)").
The noble Baroness said: I can be mercifully brief. On page 1, line 11 there is a misprint. The Bill refers to 1(b)(ii). It should read 1(b)(i). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendment.

United Nations Peacekeeping Operations
8.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what lessons can be drawn from the reports to the United Nations on UN operations in Srebrenica and Rwanda.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, five years ago this month, the "safe area" of Srebrenica fell to Serbian forces and over 7,000 men and boys were massacred. The year before, 800,000 people were slaughtered in the Rwanda genocide, again under the noses of UN troops, who were ignominiously withdrawn as soon as the killings began. The General Assembly commissioned an assessment of the Srebrenica catastrophe and the Secretary-General announced an independent inquiry into the Rwanda genocide. It is those two investigations that noble Lords are being asked to consider tonight.
The Secretary-General said that the Rwanda report concerned,
"genocide in its purest and most evil form".
He went on to say:
"We must bitterly regret that we did not do more to prevent it".
To most people, including the Security Council, it was,
"a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing".
As regards Srebrenica, the Secretary-General was,
"only too painfully aware of the failures of the organisation in implementing [its] mandate".
It was the largest massacre committed in Europe since the Second World War, of people who believed that their safety was guaranteed by the Security Council, by NATO and UNPROFOR. How did it happen?
The "safe area" policy of April 1993 was decided by the Security Council under Chapter VII, but UNPROFOR was not given the resources or the mandate to implement it. It had to ensure full respect for the safe areas, although it was recognised that, in the absence of Serbian co-operation, additional forces would be needed, including air power. The UK Representative on the Security Council said exactly that in the debate on Resolution 836, but when the Secretariat demanded a further 36,000 ground troops, we opposed the idea. None of the co-sponsors of the
1368
resolution was prepared to offer any troops. Only 7,600 troops were authorised. As the commander of UNPROFOR said in December 1993, there was,
"a fantastic gap between the resolutions of the Security Council and the will to execute those resolutions and the means available to commanders in the field".
By January 1994, only 3,000 of the authorised troops had arrived and other contingents were kept on hold because their governments could not afford to equip them. No sense of urgency was fostered because the UN was not warned of Serbian intentions by the member states, whose intelligence services did know about them. A bureaucratic command structure was established, with Bosnian operations under their own commander, responsible to a theatre force commander in Zagreb and, through him, to the Secretary-General's special representative, Yasushi Akashi. One is reminded of the comment made by General Cosgrove, the Australian Commander of the UN force in East Timor, that the UN made Australia's defence bureaucracy look shark-like in its efficiency. Perhaps the UN should take him on as a consultant to improve its capacity to conduct peacekeeping operations.
General Janvier, who had been appointed theatre commander in March 1995, was anxious to avoid confrontation with the Serbs. Both he and Akashi tried to water down the concept of the Rapid Reaction Force. Akashi threw his cards away by assuring the war criminal, Karadzic, that the force would operate under the existing peacekeeping rules of engagement.
Srebrenica could not be defended by Dutchbat, a battalion comprising 150 lightly armed men; and they made no attempt to do so. Nor did they return to the Bosniaks weapons that had been confiscated from them so that they could defend themselves. On several occasions Dutchbat did call for air strikes, but Akashi and Janvier blocked the requests because they considered that it would be perceived as entering the war against the Serbs. They feared Serb reprisals against the peacekeepers.
The Security Council tried to keep the peace where there was no peace to keep. Despite repeated evidence of Serbian aggression and bad faith, the council continued to behave as though ceasefires could be negotiated, humanitarian supplies delivered and the defenders of safe areas could sensibly be disarmed on the basis that UNPROFOR would correctly protect them, when it had neither the capacity nor the intention of doing so. The arms embargo left the Serbs in a position of almost overwhelming military superiority and deprived Bosnia of its right under the charter to self-defence. As the report states:
"The problem, which cried out for a political/military solution, was that a Member State of the United Nations, left largely defenceless as a result of an arms embargo imposed upon it by the United Nations, was being dismembered by forces committed to its destruction".
When there is no consensus on the response to active military conflicts, peacekeeping operations used as a substitute for consensus are likely to fail, yet peacekeepers are still being deployed into areas where there is no real ceasefire or peace agreement, as the Indian peacekeepers surrounded by the RUF at

1369
Kailahun in Sierra Leone have reason to know. Safe areas and protected zones do have a role in protecting civilians, but only with the consent of both parties to a conflict or if they are defended by a credible military force.
The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica was that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorise, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means. This lesson had to be learned twice in the Balkans, when the international community negotiated with an unscrupulous and murderous regime, now still holding power in Belgrade and still trying to destabilise Montenegro.
In Rwanda, an attempt was made to exterminate an entire people, which was even more clearly signalled in advance. In 1993, the UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions drew attention to massacres of Tutsis and said that there was a serious danger of genocide. His report was largely ignored by UN headquarters.
In January 1994, the UN commander in Rwanda, General Dallaire, warned that the Interahamwe were training 1,700 men to kill 1,000 Tutsis in 20 minutes. Opposition deputies and Belgian troops were to be murdered. He asked permission to give the informant protection and to seize the arms which were about to be distributed. Kofi Annan, then head of peacekeeping, refused both requests. Furthermore, he did not brief either the Secretary-General or the Security Council on the contents of the cable from General Dallaire, nor was anything done to follow up the information.
Failure to seize the arms caches told the Interahamwe that no action was going to be taken against the preparations for genocide. There followed,
"increasingly violent demonstrations, nightly grenade attacks, assassination attempts, political and ethnic killings".
The Belgians asked the Secretary-General for the forces in Rwanda, UNAMIR, to be reinforced and given a stronger mandate, but that was ignored. General Dallaire proposed that UNAMIR should undertake cordon and search operations because neither the gendarmerie nor the army had the capacity to do so themselves. Kofi Annan refused permission. When Dallaire sent UN headquarters draft rules of engagement for the peacekeepers, he did not receive a response. Headquarters did not have a procedure for approving rules of engagement.
The genocide began in earnest after the plane crash on 7th April at Kigali in which President Habyarimana was killed. As predicted, Belgian soldiers were murdered and the whole Belgian contingent was withdrawn, which was,
"a terrible blow to the mission",
as General Dallaire put it. The militia and soldiers set up road blocks and killed civilians, including the Prime Minister, while UNAMIR stood by. Faced with the choice between strengthening UNAMIR to prevent the genocide and doing nothing, the Security Council stated that it was
"appalled at the … deaths of thousands of … civilians".
It then proceeded to reduce the troops to a token presence of 270. Dallaire was sidelined by the governments of the troop-supplying states, which took direct control of the withdrawal. By the end of April, when 200,000 people had already been killed, the Secretary-General tried to persuade the Security Council to consider again the use of force to stop the killings. It responded, at the suggestion of the United Kingdom, by asking for "indicative contingency planning". It was not until 17th May that agreement was reached on a five-battalion force, but by the end of July—by which time the Rwandan Patriotic Front had occupied most of the country, stopping the slaughter—only one-tenth of the agreed troops had arrived.
In Rwanda we provided grossly inadequate resources and lacked the will or the commitment to stop the genocide. Security Council members, including Britain, were reluctant to admit, in the face of abundant evidence, that a genocide was under way. So a key recommendation of the report was that a UN action plan to prevent genocide should be initiated, providing concrete input to the world conference against racism in 2001.
I should like to ask the Minister whether that plan is being drafted, and will it include alerting the Security Council to reports by the Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions dealing with killings above a certain threshold? How would the plan deal with the situation in eastern DRC, where,
"the systemic massacre of those [Rwandan Hutus] remaining in Zaire was an abhorrent crime against humanity",
according to the Rapporteur in a passage of her current report headed "Genocide"?
There needs to be a more flexible approach to revising the mandate and force levels when a peace agreement breaks down. In Sierra Leone, the Security Council did agree a substantial increase in UNAMSIL, with a more robust mandate, but still left an incapable government to provide inadequate security forces. Yet again, a fundamental assumption underlying a UN operation turns out to be wrong, and yet we blithely continue to ignore the error.
In the Security Council debate on these reports they were hailed as a new standard of candour. If it is a standard, let every UN peacekeeping operation be subject to audit in the future. That would make the UN accountable, from the Secretary-General downwards, and ensure that warning signs of the type that we saw in the two reports are heeded in future. In any case, the Secretary-General should report periodically on the measures taken on the recommendations in both reports, both to the Security Council and to the Millennium Assembly in September.
The Canadian Foreign Minister said that the best way to honour the victims of the Rwandan genocide was a commitment never to turn away from the civilian victims of armed conflict again. But similar statements were made after the Holocaust, and before that about the Armenian genocide. If the world is really going to protect people threatened with racist violence and murder, states will have to provide the resources, the

1371
UN must have standing military and logistical capacity, and the Security Council will have to abolish the veto, the threat of which paralysed it over Kosovo. That may be Utopian, but if the Millennium Assembly goes by without the radical action demanded by these reports, we shall have failed the martyrs whose blood is on all our hands.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this important debate concerning two such horrific episodes in our history.
On 11th July 1995, just a few months before the end of a three-and-a-half year war, the Bosnian Serb army overran Srebrenica, which had been designated a UN safe area (the same status was given to Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zepa, Bihac and Gorazde). After the horrific slaughter, 8,000 men and boys, anyone who was older than 14 years, were missing. Over 2,500 people have been found in mass graves.
The enclave's inhabitants believed that the presence of 150 Dutch UN peacekeepers and the might of NATO air power would ensure their safety. But Serb forces pushed aside the UN troops and overran Srebrenica with ease. Within 48 hours, the Serbs eliminated the entire population. In the words of a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
"These are truly scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history".
As William Shawcross wrote in his superb book, Deliver us from Evil,
"This catastrophe exposed more brutally and more geographically than anything else the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the way in which the world was now dealing with disorder and ethnic conflict".
The UN report, based on about 100 interviews with a range of international figures involved in Bosnia, singles out the Bosnian Serb political and military leaders, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, as the,
"architects and implementers of the attempted genocide in Bosnia",
and criticises all those who negotiated with them rather than using military force against them in the early stages of the war. It demands that they be brought to trial. They still have not.
While blame is widely distributed, the UN's examination of its own record in Srebrenica breaks new ground by effectively damning the diplomatic nicety of trying to remain neutral and above the fray in civil conflict:
"When the international community makes a solemn promise to safeguard and protect innocent civilians from massacre, then it must be willing to back its promise with the necessary means".
Annan also pointed fingers at UN staff in New York — including himself, UN peacekeepers on the ground in Srebrenica and the six-nation Contact Group which oversees the Balkans.
1372
At the heart of the problem of protecting the safe areas was the refusal of the Security Council members, including the United States, to authorise enough troops to do the job. Boutros Ghali wanted 34,000 troops; the Security Council authorised only 7,400.
The United Nations says that it failed to help save thousands of Bosnian Muslims from a Serb mass murder in 1995 because of errors, misjudgment and.
"an inability to recognise the scope of the evil confronting us".
At the root of the UN failure, according to the Secretary-General, was the Security Council's decision to respond to the war in Bosnia with an arms embargo, humanitarian aid and a peacekeeping force. The arms embargo left the Serbs in a position of overwhelming military dominance and deprived Bosnia of its right to self-defence. And neither humanitarian assistance nor peacekeepers could solve a problem which cried out for a political-military solution.
"The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica is that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorise, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means, and with the political will to carry the policy through to its logical conclusion".
Annan encouraged the 188 UN member states to address issues raised in the report—including the institutional commitment to impartiality even when confronted with attempted genocide, and,
"the persuasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the role of force in the pursuit of peace".
After Srebrenica, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, should be commended for that open admission. The question, however, is whether his honesty has provoked bolder peacekeeping.
In the conclusion to his long report, Annan invites UN member states to reflect on,
"the gulf between mandate and means; the inadequacy of a symbolic deterrence in the face of a systematic campaign of violence; the pervasive ambivalence within the United Nations regarding the role of force in the pursuit of peace; and on an institutional ideology of impartiality even when confronted with attempted genocide".
Has it happened yet?
The Economist leader on the horror of Rwanda was entitled,
"A look back at the biggest bloodstain on the world's conscience in the 1990s".
Kofi Annan was brave enough to set up an inquiry which he knew would be critical of his role in the UN's failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Annan apologised to the Rwandan people for the UN failures.
There are some 43 lessons identified in the UN report on Rwanda. I shall concentrate in the short time available on lesson 6. It says that member states with specific areas of expertise and capability should contribute troops for those tasks. Emphasis should be placed on capability rather than numbers. Future UN operations will require the right troops with the right equipment.
I am not sure whether I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The blame cannot be laid solely at the door of the UN Secretary-General. On 25th June 1999, the MoD and the FCO announced that British rapid

1373
reaction forces were to be made available to the UN under a new arrangement. Defence Secretary George Robertson said:
"The new memorandum of understanding will allow the UN to use the best of Britain's armed forces for peace keeping operations".
The Foreign Secretary added:
"This agreement … will make a greater number of the UK's front-line forces available to the UN as well as extra support in the form of aircraft, engineers, communications equipment and medical facilities".
But when it was revealed that this would involve committing the entirety of Britain's Armed Forces, even those that we did not possess, the MoD backtracked. It was a sham; the UK did not sign over the forces to the UN. It was clear that defence policy was being made on the hoof, driven by the whims of the Foreign Secretary rather than the interests of Britain and its Armed Forces.
In the case of Sierra Leone, we have witnessed a painfully slow build up of the UN force that is supposed to protect the civilians in that African country. UNAMSIL is hardly an effective UN force. Today the UN mission in Sierra Leone is still under-strength, under-armed and ineffective. What is HMG doing to ensure that it does not happen again? It also calls into question the will of the world powers to stop atrocities in distant lands and highlights a basic flaw in UN peace-keeping missions where peace-keepers are deployed where there is no peace to keep.
Sometimes the UN's failure is built into its structure. Where a permanent member of the Security Council opposes intervention no action will be authorised, hence the UN's silence about Russia's war crimes in Chechnya and its early impotence on Kosovo. But in cases where the council approves action it is fair to insist that it be serious. The UN member states need to embrace force to secure peace, brush neutrality aside and denounce evil in order to combat it. As Mr Annan so rightly said, the UN mission to end conflict does not preclude moral judgment; on the contrary, it makes it necessary.
Does the United Nations need a stronger mandate? Sir Alexander Cadogan could not see how the council could work as from the very start Stalin insisted that each of the five must have the right to veto any military action voted on by the council. He told the implacable Russian Foreign Minister, one Mr Gromyko, "Look, you cannot have a system in which anybody can stop any order of council. Do you want a world organisation or not?" Gromyko's message from Stalin was "No".
In October 1999 the Security Council authorised the establishment of UNAMSIL, a new and much larger mission with a maximum of 6,000 military personnel, including 260 military observers, to assist the government and the parties in carrying out the provisions of the Lomé peace agreement. In February 2000 the Security Council, by resolution 1289, decided to revise the mandate to include a number of additional tasks. It expanded the military component to 11,100. By resolution 1299 of 19th May 2000 the
1374
Security Council again increased the authorised strength to 13,000 military personnel, which still included the 260 military observers.
Following the report on Srebrenica and the current crisis in Sierra Leone, should the mandate of UNAMSIL peace keeping be changed to peace enforcement? Should the UN be given adequate powers and resources to restore stability and allow a negotiated peace? From a military perspective and with reference to military doctrine, peace keeping does not apply to a situation where there is no peace to keep. The publication Joint Warfare issued in 1998 now forms the basis of much of the UK's doctrine for peace support operations. Has it been applied in Sierra Leone? Have Her Majesty's Government ever consulted that document? Have the lessons of Bosnia been learnt? How far has the debate gone on the change of the UN mandate on Sierra Leone? It seems that the answer is no. The lessons have not been learnt. The latest moves to strengthen the mandate are hardly encouraging.
What is our commitment worth? Do the Government intend to keep their promises? What reasons do HMG give for not properly supporting the UN Sierra Leone mandate? Will Her Majesty's Government support future UN peace keeping operations in full as the Robertson/Cook commitment seems to indicate, or will it renege once again, leaving us to mount another rescue mission?
With these shameful incidents still fresh in our minds, I end with a quotation from William Shawcross:
"In a more religious time it was only God whom we asked to deliver us from evil. Now we call upon our own man-made institutions for such deliverance. That is sometimes to ask for miracles".
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this debate. The noble Lord raises an important and interesting question, and it is perhaps unfortunate that a greater number of noble Lords have not been able to be present to share it with us.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have rightly outlined the history which led to the tragedies of Srebrenica and Rwanda. The cold-blooded slaughter of defenceless civilians in Srebrenica and Rwanda and the failure of the international community to prevent those slaughters stand as shameful events in recent history. Today we remember those who died and those who lost loved ones during those terrible tragedies. I agree with both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we owe it to them and to the vulnerable everywhere to learn from experience and avoid repetition.
The two reports published at the end of last year provide the painful but honest and objective analysis to aid us. The two reports stress the need for terror, murder and persecution to be met with decisive international action. They highlight the need to bring those responsible for such actions to justice and for the

1375
international community to improve current tools for conflict prevention and peace keeping. The Government have acted decisively to defend the lives and rights of those in danger. Most recently in Kosovo, our diplomatic and, ultimately, military services responded to the overriding humanitarian need of a people subjected to organised state terror and murder. On this occasion we did not fail, whatever others may have done before us. In East Timor British Gurkhas and police officers played a key part in international action to protect democracy and the right to free expression.
I do not accept the assessment of the noble Baroness of what has been done in Sierra Leone. Britain has played a fundamental part in resisting illegal efforts to topple a legitimate government and in facilitating wider international action. There has been no backtracking. We undertook to make available troops, including a rapid reaction capacity, and did so. We called upon others worldwide to join our efforts. The reshaping of Britain's Armed Forces following the 1998 Strategic Defence Review transformed our ability to contribute to peace keeping and humanitarian operations, with more and better equipped rapid reaction forces, additional strategic lift and better logistics capabilities. We declared most of those capabilities as potentially available to the UN in the June 1999 UN/UK MOU on peace keeping. These are just the kinds of capabilities that the UN needs. Progress on new defence arrangements in the European Union following the British initiative in autumn 1998 will enable Britain and the EU to contribute more effectively to international peace keeping efforts by enhancing European capabilities and speed of response.
We have also stepped up work on conflict prevention. In practice, this has meant placing human rights at the centre of our foreign policy. We have worked ceaselessly in defence of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core UN human rights instruments. That has meant the enhancement of co-ordination within government to ensure that we can use all the tools at our disposal— military, political and aid—coherently to prevent and manage conflicts. It has meant addressing the root causes of conflicts as well as the more immediate triggers, through support for democratic development and sustainable economic growth. It has also meant supporting the development of democratically accountable security forces which enhance rather than endanger the security and well-being of communities; tightening our own controls on arms export; agreeing a code of conduct with EU partners; and encouraging other states to pursue similarly responsible policies to help to limit the means of waging war.
We have acted where we can to make a difference, but we recognise that we cannot be everywhere or do everything. We have also been working to ensure that others do their part. We continue our efforts to build international consensus around a set of guidelines that would help the council to decide how it should respond to large-scale atrocities. As Kofi Annan has said, the UN Security Council and the United Nations as a
1376
whole must forge unity behind the principle that large-scale violations of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity should not be allowed to stand.
This is a core lesson of the tragedies of Srebrenica and Rwanda which we cannot afford to ignore At the United Nations we have strongly supported the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Yugoslavia which was set up by the Security Council to bring those responsible for war crimes to justice. We have been in the vanguard of those supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
In the Security Council we have sought to ensure that resolutions mandating peacekeeping missions are as clear as possible and provide for the necessary resources for implementation. I know that noble Lords are interested in the accountability of the United Nations. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to underline that the UK has actively participated in this way, promoting greater transparency in the work of the Security Council.
The UK's priorities have been made clear from Mr Annan's report on peacekeeping operations. We have outlined a number of priorities for the UN Secretary-General's report on peacekeeping operations. Those include an early warning: that the UN needs more effective mechanisms to collate and analyse early warning data and to identify programmes of preventive action. The department of peacekeeping operators in New York needs a chief of staff to draw together the various strands of planning permissions. We should like reports from the Secretary-General to contain more detailed recommendations for UN action. That will help the council to focus and use its time more effectively.
In our view, it is essential that the UN identifies as many measures as possible to speed the planning and deployment of peacekeeping missions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the information of the intelligence services of member states being made available to the United Nations? That could have made a difference in Srebrenica.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to disclose or discuss anything about our intelligence information, or anyone else's given to us. What I shall say is that we are seeking to make the information necessary to respond appropriately focused, well targeted and known to those who make the decisions.
In addition, we have made comment about the troop contributors. In our view, the UN needs to ensure that peacekeeping contingents arrive; and that, when they arrive, they are trained, equipped and ready to take robust action. We agree with what has been said by noble Lords in that regard.
We have also pressed for a more effective UN secretariat capacity to plan and conduct multifunctional peacekeeping missions and deploy forces rapidly.

1377
We have supported steps to ensure more effective protection of civilians in armed conflict. In the Security Council we have reiterated the importance of respect for civilians caught up in conflict and called for safe access for humanitarian agencies to civilians in need, adequately resourced peacekeeping, rapid deployment of peacekeepers and particular attention to the needs of vulnerable groups including refugees and the internally displaced. The UN force in Sierra Leone, and that foreshadowed for the DRC, are both mandated to protect civilians within their capabilities and areas of operation.
To answer the noble Lord's point, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that the UK has given its firm support to the proposed UN conference on racism and will work with partners to ensure that it leads to an effective action-orientated outcome. Kofi Annan has made clear his personal commitment to ensuring that the UN learns the lessons of Rwanda and Srebrenica. He intends to issue a keynote report on peace operations this summer. We hope that this report will draw together many of the strands I have outlined today and make further recommendations for decisive action. We have been working closely with the high level panel preparing the report and expect the report to be a focus for discussion at the millennium summit planned for this September.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the position in relation to Karadzic and Mladic. The international community has not forgotten the indictment against Karadzic. All those indicted for war crimes, including Karadzic, belong in The Hague in the custody of the ICTY. The commander of the Serb forces which assaulted Srebrenica, General
1378
Radislav Krstic, was also indicted by ICTY and was detained by SFOR in December 1999. His trial in The Hague is currently under way. We must remember that these issues take time. However, as others have said, they need to be addressed with a degree of vigour.
Therefore, to conclude, this Government are committed to applying the lessons of Srebrenica and Rwanda and have already proved their determination to do so. We shall continue working with the UN and other member states to create a system where human rights and international peace and stability are given the very highest priority.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does she feel able to say something in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who rightly pointed out that it is ridiculous to talk about peacekeeping where there is no peace agreement let alone a cease-fire, as we have seen in many cases? If the Minister can say something on those lines, can she also say how further killings might be prevented in Indonesia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have very much taken to heart the recommendations made in the report. It made clear that before peacekeepers can keep the peace there has to be a peace to keep. That lesson has been clearly learned and digested.
The difficulties faced by Indonesia are extremely testing. The lessons we have learned in Srebrenica, Rwanda and elsewhere will be used to good effect, we hope, in ensuring that lessons do not have to be learned again in Indonesia.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.

  EU External Aid Programme: Audit
  EU External Aid Programme: Audit
  British Council: Primary and Secondary Education in Developing Countries
  British Council: Primary and Secondary Education in Developing Countries
  Lorries: Weight and Dimension Limits
  Lorries: Weight and Dimension Limits
  Special Vehicles: Excise Duty
  Special Vehicles: Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty: Advice
  Vehicle Excise Duty: Advice
  Minister for Transport: Travel on London Underground
  Minister for Transport: Travel on London Underground
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Tunisia: Human Rights
  Tunisia: Human Rights
  Kuwaiti Prisoners in Iraq
  Kuwaiti Prisoners in Iraq
  Sierra Leone: Liberian Support for Rebels
  Sierra Leone: Liberian Support for Rebels
  Holders of Diplomatic Immunity: Serious Offences
  Holders of Diplomatic Immunity: Serious Offences
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Iran: Foreign Secretary's Proposed Visit
  Iran: Foreign Secretary's Proposed Visit
  Human Rights Act 1998: Commencement Orders
  Human Rights Act 1998: Commencement Orders
  Violent and Sexual Offences: Sentences
  Violent and Sexual Offences: Sentences
  Rehabilitation of Offenders: Review
  Rehabilitation of Offenders: Review
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  "Do Not Resuscitate" Instructions
  "Do Not Resuscitate" Instructions
  Women's Issues: 10 Downing Street Website Policy Discussions
  Women's Issues: 10 Downing Street Website Policy Discussions
  House of Lords Reform: Joint Committee
  House of Lords Reform: Joint Committee
  OSCE Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  OSCE Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  GM Seed: Exclusion of Crops from Food Chain
  GM Seed: Exclusion of Crops from Food Chain
  Under 10 Metre Fishing Fleet
  Under 10 Metre Fishing Fleet
  Red Tape and Bureaucracy Review: Implementation of Recommendations
  Red Tape and Bureaucracy Review: Implementation of Recommendations