Sitting of 6 June 2000

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 13 June.
GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 13 June.
RAILTRACK (WAVERLEY STATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. David Crausby: What progress is being made on reducing waiting times for cancer treatment. [122859]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In April last year, we introduced a two-week waiting time standard for women referred urgently by their general practitioners with suspected breast cancer. This new high standard of care is being put in place for all other urgent cases of suspected cancer during this year. We will be publishing a national cancer plan in the autumn, which will set out our strategy to ensure all cancer patients benefit from prompt access to high-quality diagnostic and treatment services.
  Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and warmly welcome the increased resources that have been made available for cancer treatment. However, although my constituents receive good cancer services from Royal Bolton hospital, they would benefit enormously from quicker diagnostic care, better oncology services and improved palliative care. The Bolton district is among the most poorly funded areas in the country.
  142
  Would my right hon. Friend visit the hospital to discuss these important services? He would be made most welcome.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. We have put extra resources into the Royal Bolton hospital to replace X-ray equipment for breast cancer screening. My hon. Friend will know too that we put in more than £100,000 extra over the previous financial year to improve waiting times for treatment. However, there is always more that can be done, and I am aware of the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency with regard to cancer survival rates. We must continue working on that problem, by improving treatment, and also by focusing on prevention.
  Finally, I should be happy to visit the Royal Bolton hospital when I am in the area, as would any of my ministerial colleagues.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Cancer is a scourge of modern life, and it is right to concentrate on reducing deaths from that terrible disease. However, should not the Government pay more attention to bringing our outcomes into line with those achieved by our European partners, and less to gimmicks? How would the Secretary of State respond to the remarks made by Dr. Joan Austoker of the Cancer Research Campaign, who said that the two-week rule has led to a waste of resources and of specialists' time?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady cannot have her cake and eat it. Like me, she wants response times for people with suspected cancer to be faster. That must be the right objective, as it must be very worrying to be told by a GP that one is suspected of having cancer. The sooner a person in those circumstances can see a specialist, the better the chances of successful treatment. It is right for the Government to make sure that people suspected of having cancer see a specialist in hospital as quickly as possible, and we are making good progress on that.
  The hon. Lady mentioned cancer survival rates. She served on the Select Committee on Health and knows from her own experience that the picture in the UK is pretty mixed: in some respects we have better survival rates than our European partners—for example, in connection with cervical cancer—but in others, our survival rates our lower. That is why the Government have made the war on cancer such a top priority. It must be right for us to make sure that cancer treatment is improved, and to achieve a proper focus on prevention—for example, by tackling smoking.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: It is right that the Government should give priority to the treatment of cancer, which should be at the forefront of the war on ill health. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a public health report published this week shows that Halton has the highest incidence in the country of cancer from all causes? It also has the second highest incidence of death from all causes. Those figures are obviously appalling for my constituents, and for those of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall). Will my right hon. Friend examine the figures to which I have referred, and will it be possible for my hon. Friend and me to have a meeting with Ministers to discuss them?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sure that that will be possible. My hon. Friend will know from his constituency

  143
  experience that the distribution of cancers across the United Kingdom, and England, is uneven, and that poorer areas tend to have the highest rates of cancer and of coronary heart disease. That is why, when we put extra resources into the national health service to improve cancer treatment, we must ensure that the money goes to the right areas. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), announced in March a further expansion in the number of cancer specialists—the doctors who work in cancer services. We must increase the numbers of such doctors, just as we must increase the numbers of nurses and of treatments available. That will help us tackle cancer, and the appalling health inequalities that scar our nation.
  Mr. James Gray: My father died of cancer, and my mother is currently a sufferer. Opposition Members welcome every penny that can be spent on cancer, but I am worried that the Government seem to concentrate more on gimmicks, such as reducing the waiting time to see GPs. The head of the World Health Organisation cancer specialist team has said that diagnosing cancer is no problem, and that it is entirely misplaced to claim great credit for having cured it. The same specialist described last year's cancer summit in No. 10 Downing street as a total waste of time, and said that participants would have done better to spend an hour moaning about cancer down at the pub.
  Will the Secretary of State please tell the House that yesterday's NHS summit in Downing street was more substantive than that, and that some improvements in the diagnosis and care of cancer may come out of it?
  Mr. Milburn: It simply is not true to say that getting to see a hospital specialist is not a problem—it is a problem in many parts of the national health service. There have been well reported cases of people who have been told by their general practitioner that they have suspected cancer having to wait for weeks and, in some cases, months on end, to see a specialist. That cannot be right, which is why we have put such a high priority on ensuring that people get to see hospital specialists as quickly as possible.
  That is not the be-all and end-all, however, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. We have put a huge amount of new investment into cancer equipment in particular. On 1 January this year, I announced the biggest increase in investment for new cancer equipment that the country has seen. That means that in three or four years' time, our cancer equipment will rival anything that is available in hospitals in comparable countries such as Italy, Germany and France. That is the right thing to do—it is not a gimmick, but getting on with the job of modernising and improving the NHS.

  Audiology Services
  Mr. John Healey: If he will make a statement on plans to improve audiology services and the provision of hearing aids on the national health service. [122860]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We are funding a £4 million project in England which, for the first time, will provide NHS
  144
  patients with new digital hearing aids. The first wave of 15 NHS trusts, which we announced on 25 May, are expected to start to supply digital aids from September this year. A further five trusts will begin the provision of digital hearing aids from next year.
  Mr. Healey: Having once worked for the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, and run the fair hearing campaign 12 years ago to press for better NHS hearing aids, I welcome that reply, and also the news of the pilot schemes.
  Is my hon. Friend aware that last year 72 children from the Rotherham area had audiology first appointments at the Sheffield children's hospital, which is running one of the pilot schemes, and that many of those children will in the future benefit from the best technology available?
  Is my hon. Friend planning any further pilots in this field? What hope can he give adults in our area that in time they, too, will be able to benefit from a thoroughly modernised NHS audiology service?
  Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a major modernisation of NHS hearing aid services, and it is only right that NHS patients should have the advantage of the latest technology at the earliest opportunity. I am glad that children from my hon. 'Friend's constituency will be among the first to benefit from the new technology.
  We are working closely in partnership with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. Our partnership with the institute is ground-breaking—it is helping us oversee the monitoring of this project. We hope that as soon as the project is completed, we can discuss the greater availability of digital hearing aids across the national health service, so that the constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members can benefit from the new technology's undoubted benefits.
  Mr. David Heath: Is not what the hon. Gentleman describes another example of postcode prescribing? If there is new technology that is to the advantage of deaf people, why on earth is it not available across the country to all patients who require it? Is it not the case that technology in this area is advancing all the time, and that deaf people need the assistance of the best possible technology?
  Mr. Hutton: I am very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has taken that attitude. This is a hugely important modernisation of hearing aid services across the NHS, which has been widely welcomed by the RNID, our key partner in implementing this exciting new project. I stress to the hon. Gentleman and to others who might share his view on these matters that this is new technology. There is every justification for making sure that we prepare the ground for the introduction of that new technology so that the other parts of the NHS can take advantage of it at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Of course this is not an example of postcode prescribing—we are trying to get away from that. This is a major modernisation of the NHS, and I greatly regret that the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to welcome it.
  Valerie Davey: From my constituency, I welcome the Minister's statement. I also welcome the

  145
  fact that in the south-west, the Bristol royal infirmary will be involved in the second phase of the pilot. Will the new pilots include work for children for whom a hearing impairment in the early years could be especially detrimental?
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The NHS trust in her constituency that will participate in the project next year is doing so with children specifically in mind. It is important that the new technology be available to children. The needs of deaf and hearing-impaired children are different from those of adults, so it is important to pilot the project carefully for them. I can assure my hon. Friend that children are at the top of the list of our priorities; they will be among the principal beneficiaries of the new technology. I am sure she will want to give a warm welcome to this project—as will her constituents.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Obviously, we warmly welcome the fact that the NHS is embracing that new technology. However, we urge the Government to accompany it by action to tackle waiting lists. The standard set by the patients charter was for 90 per cent. of patients to receive a hearing test within 13 weeks, but the Audit Commission's recent survey reveals that the average waiting time is 19 weeks; that in one fifth of health authorities, the average wait exceeds six months; and that in some it is 18 months—that is two academic years for children. Does not that make the Government's pledge to reduce waiting and to end regional variation sound absolutely hollow?
  Mr. Hutton: No, of course it does not. Like the hon. Lady and everyone in this place, we regret the fact that people have to wait for treatment that is urgent and pressing. We are taking a range of initiatives to reduce those waiting times and waiting lists—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for lending some support. However, we should not beat around the bush—the introduction of the new technology is a major advance and development for the NHS. It is only right that patients who use and rely on the NHS—not like the hon. Lady—should have access to the benefits of the new technology at the earliest opportunity.

  Cancelled Operations (Leicester)
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: How many operations were cancelled at Leicester's general hospitals between (a) November 1998 and March 1999 and (b) November 1999 and March 2000. [122861]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The latest period for which information is available in the Department is the quarter ending December 1999. The number of operations cancelled at the last minute for non-medical reasons by hospitals covered by Leicestershire health authority in the period between October and December 1999 was 222. That was less than the 249 for the corresponding period in the previous year, although 2,775 more elective and non-elective cases were dealt with.
  Mr. Robathan: I am surprised that, with the army of bureaucrats behind the Minister, he could not find better answers. He could have read the Leicester Mercury of 3 May, which would have told him that 1,237 operations
  146
  were cancelled during that period—a 40 per cent. rise on the 755 that were cancelled during the whole of the previous year. Will the Minister explain to those 1,237 people—including my constituents—why they should believe anything that the Government say about the NHS, especially given his previous dissembling answer?
  Mr. Denham: I am of course familiar with the report that appeared in the Leicester Mercury. If the hon. Gentleman had done a little homework, instead of relying on the newspaper, he would have realised that the figures he quoted were wrong. He quoted figures for operations cancelled during one year for all reasons—however long before the operation. For the previous year, he gave the figures—as I did—for those operations that were cancelled according to the standards set by the patients charter. As I pointed out, in the last quarter for which information is available, the number of operations cancelled according to patients charter standards—introduced by the previous Conservative Government—actually fell, even though the NHS in Leicestershire treated more patients. However, I am not complacent about that; I do not like any operation to be cancelled. That is why I welcome the recent announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of £150 million investment in critical care facilities in the NHS in England. By tackling such problems, we shall ensure that more patients are treated and that operations are cancelled for fewer patients.

  Cancer Treatment
  Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the two-week waiting period for referral to a cancer specialist. [122862]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): The two week waiting time standard was introduced for urgent cases of suspected breast cancer in April 1999. Since then, more than 56,000 women have benefited by seeing a specialist within two weeks. That high standard of care is being put in place for all other urgent cases of suspected cancer during this year.
  Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind that the two-week period applies to all cases of suspected cancer—or will soon do so—will she join me this month at the launch of the third Everyman male cancer awareness month? With the help of sports celebrities, the media highlighted the fact that, although prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, with over 9,000 deaths year, it receives only about 5 per cent. of the available research funding. Will she join me in welcoming the building of the UK's first dedicated male cancer research centre? Later this year, it should begin to turn around that situation and help all our men.
  Yvette Cooper: I certainly join my hon. Friend in giving strong support to the work being done by the Institute of Cancer Research to raise awareness of men's cancers. I share her concern about the need for more research into prostate cancer, which is probably one of the most mysterious common cancers. That is why we recently announced as a first step an extra £1 million of Government research money for prostate cancer this year and why we are working with other cancer research

  147
  funders to take the work further. We have made it clear that we are particularly keen to see research into new testing and treatment technologies for prostate cancer.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The question of the hon. Member for Reading, East (jane Griffiths) referred to waiting times for referral to a cancer specialist, and therein lies the problem. Does the Minister acknowledge that qualified opinion is pretty much universal in taking the view that, in cancer cases, waiting time is less important than the specialism of the doctor to which the referral is made? Does she also acknowledge that the top priority is ensuring that urgent cancer referrals are seen by cancer specialists and not by general surgeons? What percentage of urgent cancer referrals are currently seen by cancer specialists?
  Yvette Cooper: It is a top priority to make sure that we have increasing numbers of cancer specialists and that people are seen, treated and dealt with by multidisciplinary teams that deal with cancer. That is exactly why we have made cancer a top priority and why Professor Mike Richards is working to develop a national cancer programme to put such policies in place.
  Mr. Llew Smith: My constituency has some of the worst health problems—they include certain cancers—in the United Kingdom. At the health summit yesterday, did my hon. Friend have the opportunity to discuss that issue with her opposite number in the Welsh Assembly and to urge that the formula that determines the distribution of health moneys throughout Wales should be based on health needs and not on head of population?
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend will be aware that this issue is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. However, I can tell him that it is the subject of continual discussion across the United Kingdom.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement about the organisation of the public consultation on the future and reform of the national health service. [122863]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Last 0month—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends have long memories. Last month, I launched the largest public consultation exercise on health care services that the country has ever seen. Patients and staff across the whole of the country will have the chance to have their say about how best to reform and improve NHS services with the record extra resources that the Government have committed to the NHS.
  Mr. Amess: Never mind about Basildon or Southend, West. Does the Secretary of State have any idea of the anger and outrage that was felt by people all over the country—and particularly by those who have loved ones suffering—when they were asked to fill in a form and to send it back by yesterday? Will he tell the House why, after 18 years in opposition and more than three years in government, the Government have not delivered on any of their promises other than to produce an absolute
  148
  shambles? Will he also tell us what he intends to do with the forms when he gets them back, particularly if the answer to the question
  What would make the NHS better for you and your family?
  is that this rotten Government should go?
  Mr. Milburn: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has got that off his chest; I hope that he feels better for it.
  On the consultation exercise, it would be pretty bizarre if the Government did not ask the people who use and provide the national health service—the patients and the staff—for their views about it. As for listening to people, the hon. Gentleman listened so hard to the voters of Basildon at the last election that he went on the chicken run to Southend.
  Mr. Jim Dobbin: As part of the public consultation process, is my right hon. Friend minded to consult the British Medical Association over consultant contracts? I spent 33 years working in the health service, and I believe that consultants should work full time in the NHS or full time in the private sector.
  Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have been in discussion with the British Medical Association for well over a year about a reform of the consultant contract. Both the BMA and the Government believe that such reform is well overdue. It is worth making the point that the overwhelming majority of consultants who work for the national health service do a brilliant job and work extremely hard. It is also true that we have some of the finest doctors in the land. It is important that we make sure that when consultants are working in the NHS, we get the best from each and every one of them.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: Why exactly did the public have to respond to the consultation exercise in five days? As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Government have had a long time to consider their priorities. Why did the public have to respond so quickly? How many of them have done so? What chance did the Secretary of State have to consider the responses before he announced an initiative on consultants yesterday and on nurses today, which he says is in response to public anxiety? With regard to the nurses who are to run the accident and emergency departments, where will the extra nurses come from? We know that there are 17,000 vacancies. Where are the extra nurses who are suddenly to run the accident and emergency departments lurking at present? When will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the results of the consultation?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that there are about 5,000 more nurses working in the NHS than there were a year ago. Of course there are still vacancies in the NHS. Although we have turned the corner on nursing shortages, nobody pretends that there is not a long way to go. That is true, but the big pay awards that we have rightly given to nurses in the past two years have helped to recruit more nurses back into the NHS and, most importantly, are helping to retain nurses in the NHS. The number of nurses is on an upward trend, which is good news. Equally importantly, the number of nurses in training is also on a big upward trend. I remind the

  149
  hon. Gentleman that when we came to office, the number of nurse training places had been cut. We have now put that right. It is the right thing to do.
  It is too early to say how many consultation responses there were. They are still coming in. I know that because one was posted through my letter box at home this morning.
  Ann Clwyd: I know that reform of the General Medical Council is a matter close to my right hon. Friend's heart. Will he consider in particular ways of beefing up the GMC? Three weeks ago I mentioned in the House the case of a cosmetic surgeon against whom there are now 80 written complaints. His fellow doctors have accused him of being a psychopath and not fit to operate on patients. I telephoned the chief executive of the GMC this morning to ask whether the surgeon was still operating. The chief executive replied that he did not know. Surely patients must be better protected than that.
  Mr. Milburn: The whole House will concur with my hon. Friend's sentiments. There is a gathering consensus not just in Government, but across the House and in the medical profession, that the General Medical Council must be radically reformed. There has been a succession of cases in which the GMC has failed to bite the bullet and to deal with cases in the timely and efficient way that patients would expect.
  To give credit to the GMC, I know that it is currently discussing how it can best put its own house in order. I welcome the proposals that it is putting together, but there is no doubt that a real, radical reform of the GMC is needed. I say that not to denigrate any doctor or the GMC's efforts to reform. There is no doubt in my mind that doctors overwhelmingly do a brilliant job for the national health service, but none of us can allow the bad practices of a small minority of doctors to tarnish the good reputation of the medical profession as a whole. It is in the interests of the medical profession as much as it is in the interests of patients for radical reform to take root as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: There are hundreds of protesters outside the premises this afternoon. They are campaigning to save their hospital. They are disappointed that the Secretary of State has not found time today to meet them and thus make consultation meaningful. They would like to consult him face to face. They are not convinced by the Prime Minister's assurance that money will be spent on every accident and emergency hospital in the country when their accident and emergency unit is being downgraded. They are not convinced by the Secretary of State's claims that he is opening new hospitals all over the country when their acute services are disappearing. They would have preferred the money that was spent on the consultation exercise to be spent on nurses and doctors and on keeping Kidderminster hospital open.
  Mr. Milburn: I am, of course, aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, and those that have been expressed in Kidderminster. We have held a consultation exercise, which the hon. Gentleman will remember because he participated in it—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: A pointless exercise.
  Mr. Milburn: It was not. We undertook the consultation and we made decisions about Kidderminster on the basis of the best clinical advice to ensure high quality and, most important, safe services for patients.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right for a Government to consult people before embarking on major changes in the national health service? Is not the real contrast between this Government, who are trying to do that and the previous Government, who, when they introduced the internal health market, cooked it up behind closed doors and consulted no one?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right except about one small point. The previous Government consulted some people: not doctors, nurses, managers or patients, but the Adam Smith Institute. Perhaps that explains why they went wrong.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Last week, no leaflets were readily available in many parts of the country. In Chester, a disabled patient was unable to obtain a leaflet because she is housebound. When she queried that with the Department, she was told that leaflets were available only in a surgery or a supermarket. Yet she regularly uses the NHS. In Buckinghamshire, a GP received only five leaflets, while in Camberwell a single-handed GP was given 2,500 leaflets although he has only 1,200 patients.
  I ask the Secretary of State not to be coy or modest today. Was the plan all his idea and down to his competence alone or, in view of claims in The Sun that the Prime Minister has been spending six hours a day considering the matter, should he share the credit for the fiasco?
  Mr. Milburn: I am now not sure what the hon. Gentleman's position is. Last week, he argued—
  Mr. Peter Luff: Answer!
  Mr. Milburn: Is the hon. Gentleman feeling all right?
  Mr. Luff: Yes.
  Mr. Milburn: He should keep taking the medicine.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) advocated undertaking less consultation; this week he suggests that we should do more. The hon. Gentleman wants to have his say about the NHS but does not want patients and staff to have theirs. We know the hon. Gentleman's top three reforms of the NHS; he told the Conservative party conference what he would do. No. 1, he said:
  The biggest problem that we have in the NHS is that it is not a proper market.
  No. 2, he said that the NHS required "less and less equipment". [Interruption.] That is what he told the Conservative party conference. No. 3, he said that the Conservative party's health policy would mean that "maximum waiting time is increased". The hon. Gentleman's response to the consultation would therefore

  151
  be more market, less equipment and longer waits. The Conservative party does not have a national plan for the NHS; it has a secret plan not to modernise but to privatise it.
  Dr. Fox: Now that the Secretary of State has got his first evasion out of the way, let me try to remind him that this is Question Time and that he is supposed to take responsibility for his failures.
  From which NHS budget is the £500,000—research or simply public relations? Does the Secretary of State know that one industry analyst has already said that the Government can expect only 0.5 per cent. return from the exercise? That means that each reply will have cost £8. According to MORI, similar results could have been achieved for only £4,000 if a scientifically conducted survey of 2,000 people had been undertaken. Given that the £500,000 would have purchased 50 bypass operations or 500 cataract operations, or paid for more than 30 full-time new nurses, does the Secretary of State believe that he and the Prime Minister are giving NHS patients value for money?
  Mr. Milburn: There is a simple question for the hon. Gentleman: does he believe in consulting patients and staff in the NHS, or does he not? Frankly, he would be on better ground about wasting public money if his party in office had not wasted billions of pounds of public money on the internal market. I know that he does not want to talk about the speech that he gave at the Conservative party conference; he does not want to be reminded of it, but the country should be, and to ensure that patients and staff throughout the country have the opportunity to read what he said, on the internet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Conservative Members do not want to listen because they do not want to hear what he had to say, but the transcript of the hon. Gentleman's speech is widely available today on the internet news pages at www.labour.org.uk so that members of the public can see precisely what his plans are for the NHS—not to modernise it, but to privatise it.
  Dr. Fox: What contempt for Parliament; what a pathetic excuse for a Secretary of State. That was the best example ever of the Government's all spin, no substance approach to the NHS. Patients had too little time to reply to the exercise, even if they could get hold of a leaflet. Doctors will be the new scapegoats for the right hon. Gentleman's failures—the latest victims of the Government's blame culture. The day after their latest non-event, so-called health summit, have not he and the Prime Minister shown that they cannot even conduct their own PR stunts competently and that they do not share the same priorities as patients or doctors? In fact, they are so out of touch that they do not even know how long the postal service takes. On the day that waiting lists increased yet again, who will take responsibility and carry the can for this absurd and pathetic fiasco?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has to be reminded about what we have done in office during the past three years. I remind him of the abolition of the internal market, which his party opposed; the introduction of primary care groups, which his party opposed; the reduction in waiting lists, which his party opposed; the creation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, to tackle the lottery in care, and of the Commission for Health Improvement,
  152
  which his party opposed; the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, which his party opposed; and the biggest increase in resources for the NHS, which his party opposed. There are more doctors, more nurses, more casualty departments being modernised and more patients being treated, all of which Conservative Members oppose because they do not support efforts to modernised the NHS; their only agenda is to privatise it.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Bill Michie: If he will make a statement on his plans to improve services for elderly people. [122866]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): We are determined that older people should receive higher standards of care from the NHS and social services. That is why the national service framework will, for the first time, set national standards for the care of older people. Our plans to develop intermediate care services will also play an important part in promoting the health, independence and social inclusion of older people. We shall announce our response to the royal commission on long-term care later this summer.
  Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that he was setting up a new tier of intermediate services between hospitals and primary care. Can my hon. Friend inform the House what form that is likely to take? What steps have been taken to deal with age discrimination in the NHS?
  Mr. Hutton: We shall announce detailed proposals on the introduction of new intermediate care services across the NHS later this summer. Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend will be aware that intermediate care involves a variety of different services, some of which are designed to support people more effectively at home, some to prevent them from being admitted to hospital in the first place and others to improve the active recovery and rehabilitation of older people when they are ready for discharge from hospital. It is certainly clear that we need to improve the range of services available to older people in all those three key areas, and we will certainly take forward detailed proposals to do so.
  I make it clear to my hon. Friend, his constituents and everyone listening to Question Time that age discrimination—discrimination of any kind—has absolutely no role in the NHS. It fundamentally contradicts a basic ethos around which the NHS was established: treatment should be available on the basis of clinical need. We fully subscribe to that and shall challenge and root out any practice in the NHS that discriminates against older people simply on the ground of their age.
  Miss Julie Kirk bride: The Minister has already been made aware by my hon. Friend the Member

  153
  for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that there are about 500 people outside the House campaigning against the closure of Kidderminster general hospital.
  Mr. Andy King: Opportunist.
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Miss Kirkbride: For the elderly citizens of Kidderminster and of my constituency of Bromsgrove, can the Minister explain how their services will be improved by taking the 20-mile journey to the Worcester hospital when some of them cannot drive and bus services are infrequent, if they exist at all?
  Mr. Hutton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed some of those concerns when answering the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). On services for older people, all I will say to the hon. Lady is that her constituents will benefit from the additional resources and the new services that we will make available to improve care for older people. When those announcements are made and she can see the benefits, I hope that she will be the first to say that the Government are doing the right thing.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that private nursing homes do not maintain the same standards as NHS units? Should there be any suggestion that people should vacate NHS beds and move to units that do not maintain the same standards, many of us, as we would not accept that for members of our own families, would not accept it for our constituents.
  Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and neither would we. That will not happen. When those new services are developed, we shall make clear the specification that we expect in return for the investment. I can tell her that we are also taking parallel measures to improve the standard of care in all nursing homes, and we will make further announcements about that in the near future. Let me make it clear to her and to the House that there is no question of the new intermediate care services being in any way second tier or second class. They will be of the highest possible quality. We shall make sure of that.

  Nurses
  Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): If he will make a statement on recruitment and retention of nurses in the national health service. [R][122867]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): More than 6,000 extra qualified nurses were working in the national health service in September 1999 than at the same time the previous year and Cornwall has more than 100 whole-time equivalent extra nurses than it had at the general election. The 2000 nurse recruitment campaign has generated more than 45,000 calls and more than 5,500 farmer nurses have returned, or are preparing to return, to the NHS since February last year. Applications to nurse training
  154
  increased by 73 per cent. last year, including a 100 per cent. increase in applicants from black and ethnic minority backgrounds.
  Mr. George: I appreciate what the Government are doing, and it is fair to recognise that the problem of nurse and midwife shortages cannot be resolved overnight, but does the Minister accept that nurses are still a long way from being treated on a par with police and teachers in respect of career path opportunities, pay and conditions, opportunities for early retirement and access to pay, training and retraining? Is he happy with the present situation? If not, what plans has he to reform the nursing profession for good?
  Mr. Denham: Many changes to the role of the nursing profession are either under way or under active consideration as we draw up the national plan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his determination for some of the traditional professional barriers in the NHS to be broken down. That will include enhanced roles and, therefore, better career prospects for nurses. We have already introduced the nurse consultant grade—the first posts are being created—and we are also taking action on the working conditions and working lives of nurses and other health service staff. We are publishing standards on family-friendly employment, for example. All health service employers will be expected to meet them and receive accreditation. We are trying to enhance the professional career and role of nurses and to offer more flexible employment to enable the many nurses who have to balance home and work responsibilities to do so more successfully.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend has obviously had great success in recruiting more student nurses. Will he assure me that he is giving serious consideration to representations by organisations such as Unison and the Royal College of Nursing on student bursaries, which would enable student nurses who are recruited to be retained in the service?
  Mr. Denham: It is clearly important that we do not waste the talents of a single person with the ability and commitment to become a nurse. We are therefore examining variations in drop-out rates in universities which provide nurse education, and are also undertaking a review of student nurses' financial support. I do not wish to suggest that we are proposing any fundamental changes to the current system, but we want to examine the details of the way in which the system operates, as raised by organisations such as Unison and the RCN.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Ian Bruce: What the maximum waiting time is for a patient to enter a national health service hospital. [122868]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The standard, which was introduced by the previous Government, is that nobody should wait more than 18 months for admission to hospital. Most patients are seen much more quickly than that, and about 70 per cent. are admitted within three months of being placed on a waiting list. However, there is little doubt that too many

  155
  people are waiting too long for treatment, which is why, in formulating the national plan that will be published next year, we are considering the best way of getting waiting times down.
  Mr. Bruce: I am sure that the House will be aware that the Secretary of State did not answer the question on the Order Paper, so I shall ask him an easier one. In the 13 million propaganda leaflets that he recently put out, he stated that he now wanted the national health service to put patients first. Will he tell the House whom he thinks that doctors and nurses have been putting first for the past 50 years?
  Mr. Milburn: Of course doctors and nurses put patients first. However, in their responses to the leaflet campaign and in my discussions with them on visits, they say that all too often they feel that they are having to fight the system, with which many fundamental things are simply wrong. The system does not work at its best for patients or staff because, for example, there are too many professional demarcations between staff and organisations. All hon. Members know from constituency experience that the divide between health and social care particularly bedevils the care of elderly people and people with disabilities. To deal with those problems, there must be radical reform and wholesale investment in the NHS to ensure that we win the war on waiting throughout the health service.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that one way to improve waiting times is to solve career gap problems. Indeed, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has already referred to nurse recruitment. What advice would my right hon. Friend give to one of my constituents who, having been accepted, tells me that lack of child care prevents her from getting through the process?
  Mr. Milburn: That certainly is a problem. Our advice to NHS trusts is that they need to get a grip on those precise issues. Many barriers stand in the way of people coming into nursing and, indeed, staying in the profession. Although there are concerns about pay, it is a question not just about pay but about the conditions under which people are employed. Sometimes, the NHS is too inflexible as an employer. If my hon. Friend examines employment and pay structures in the NHS, he will see that they owe more to 1948 than to the 21st century.
  We must change that. Of course, we must put money in to recruit doctors and nurses and give the system more beds, but we now have an opportunity to reform radically the way in which the whole system works.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: In January 1999, one of my constituents was told that she needed a triple heart bypass operation for which the waiting time was nine months. Eighteen months later, she is still waiting, despite the fact, a month ago, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), told me in a written answer that the waiting time for cardiac surgery in my area was 15 months, although the aim was
  156
  to reduce that to 12 months. Will the Secretary of State apologise both to my constituent for not giving her timely treatment and to the House for giving an incorrect reply?
  Mr. Milburn: I am not aware of that particular case, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will of course look into it. As I have continually made clear, there is no doubt that waiting times for treatment, especially heart surgery, are too long. That is because we have a historic under-capacity in heart surgery. I cannot conjure heart surgeons out of thin air; it takes six or seven years to train a heart surgeon, and there are only 171 operating in the NHS in England because the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported failed to make the battle against coronary heart disease a priority. We are putting that right.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the priority given to public health and healthy living programmes in the future plans of primary care groups and trusts in the north west. [122869]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): Health improvement programmes across the north-west include an assessment of the health needs of local populations, and the funding of primary care group investment plans is aligned with programmes' priorities. Primary care groups and trusts have huge potential to improve people's health and prevent illness, and the north-west regional office will continue to support that developing role.
  Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I am encouraged by her emphasis, and that of primary care groups, on preventive health measures. The primary care group in my constituency is pressing ahead on that front with preventive measures on osteoporosis and is introducing nutritional standards for the elderly and nursing standards. Such issues are especially important in the north-west because of the diet and life style challenges in the area. What incentives can my hon. Friend provide to primary care groups and trusts to take such measures so that outcomes are adequate and contribute to definite improvements in diet and life style?
  Yvette Cooper: An immense amount of work can be done through primary care groups to promote health, prevent ill health and tackle health inequalities. The primary care group in my constituency is working with the Castleford Tigers to promote healthy eating in schools. In developing the national plan, we are seeking ways to spread best practice by primary care groups to every area so that we can tackle the health inequalities whereby people in low income areas are most likely to become ill.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Public health and healthy living programmes are vital to the future health of the next generation, but does the Minister agree that it is critical that confusion about the roles of primary care groups and hospital trusts should not lead to duplication of facilities? Will she ensure that those roles are clearly defined and that the position of trusts such as

  157
  the East Cheshire NHS trust in my constituency is not eroded by the future development of primary care groups, which will eventually become trusts?
  Yvette Cooper: Health promotion and prevention of ill health do not cause problems of duplication; rather, there is a need to fill gaps. For too long, there has not been sufficient emphasis on preventing people from becoming ill and on tackling the huge unacceptable health inequalities throughout the country. We need to encourage people throughout the NHS to work with the community, not in duplication but in partnership, to deliver health improvements for every member of our population.

  Dental Service Strategy
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What discussions he has had with the British Dental Association about the proposed new NHS dental service strategy. [122872]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): My noble Friend the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has met representatives from the British Dental Association on several occasions, during which the content of the forthcoming dental strategy has been discussed.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that in Burnley, as in many constituencies, many dentists have left the NHS, and it is increasingly difficult for adult patients to get on the list of an NHS dentist. I met BDA members, from both the private sector and the NHS, in Burnley recently, and they are anxiously waiting for the new strategy because they want to know what it means for the dental profession and for the public, and whether there is to be a future for the NHS dental service—I am sure that the Government want one.
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the importance of the dental strategy, which we intend to publish in conjunction with the national plan later this summer. Mr. John Renshaw, the chairman of the BDA's executive board, is a member of the modernisation action team, which is examining patient care and speed of access. In the meantime, the Government have taken action to promote NHS dentistry, and my hon. Friend will know that an investing in dentistry grant of £44,000 has been agreed with a practice in Burnley in return for the promise of up to 3,400 new NHS patient registrations. I hope that that will go some way to tackling the problems that he has outlined.
  Mr. John Bercow: In the development of the NHS dental service strategy, what scope does the Minister envisage for co-operation with the private dental sector?
  Mr. Denham: Many dentists already offer both private and NHS treatment, but we are especially keen to extend access to NHS dentistry to those who have no access to it. We hope that, by the end of the year, some 40 dental access centres will be open where they are most needed, providing high-quality NHS dentistry for those who cannot find a dentist with whom to register. Because we want dentists engaging in both NHS and private practice
  158
  to do more in the NHS, we are negotiating a package of about £17 million with the BDA to encourage further NHS registrations.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Jean Corston: What role the Commission for Health Improvement has in tackling differences in health service provision between postcode areas. [122873]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Tackling unacceptable variations in health care is a key challenge for the national health service.
  The Commission for Health Improvement will regularly review the steps being taken in the NHS to address unjustifiable variations in the quality of, or access to, treatment and care, including action taken to implement national service frameworks and the uptake of guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
  Jean Corston: It is clearly early days for the commission, which has been operating for only two months. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that while it is right and proper for local health authorities to be given responsibility to provide for the health needs of their populations, people do not understand the disparity in the availability of some services? I am thinking of, for instance, infertility treatment, and the prescribing of beta interferon and certain cancer drugs. Will the commission have a role in addressing those disparities?
  Ms Stuart: Not only will the commission be able to reassure patients and the public that effective systems are in place to deliver high quality; it will work with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which was created to ensure that every patient has fair access to quality treatment. That is done by identifying the best practice, and spreading it quickly.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest disparities across the country is in the use and provision of complementary and alternative medicine? Surveys show that 75 per cent. of the population want such medicine to be available on the health service. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for her Department to consider how it can be provided by the health service, at the point of delivery, throughout the nation?
  Ms Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a move in favour of complementary medicine. NICE has terms of reference for an investigation based on science and evidence which will focus mainly on the major killers, but, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, bodies such as NHS Direct will be able to advise on where people can find alternative and complementary medicine. We have not closed our minds to that.

  Workington Infirmary
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will make a statement on the future of Workington infirmary. [122874]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The West Cumbria Health Care national health service trust is working with the North Cumbria health authority and West Cumbria primary care group on an outline business case to develop modern community and primary care facilities in Workington to replace existing services provided at Workington infirmary.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can my hon. Friend assure me that there will be no delay anywhere in the system that would in any way impede the earliest possible introduction of the new provision in Workington? The provision is required, and the proposal is popular.
  Mr. Hutton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows, the outline business case will be submitted later in the summer, and we fully expect the trust to meet its original target date of June 2002 for the reprovision of services in Workington.
  My hon. Friend will know better than I do that parts of Workington infirmary are 115 years old. There is an obvious need to improve NHS services and premises in his constituency, and I hope it will be possible for me to go to Workington later in the summer to talk to him and his constituents about that important reprovision.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the setting up of primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [122875]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I and my officials have regular meetings with a range of relevant national and local organisations to discuss the establishment of primary care trusts.
  Miss McIntosh: What action are the Government planning to take, through primary care trusts, to improve treatment for osteoporosis?
  Mr. Denham: Primary care trusts, with other players in the local health economy, have a key role to play in drawing up local health improvement plans and in ensuring that those plans reflect national and local priorities. Therefore, issues such as osteoporosis can certainly be dealt with by primary care trusts in conjunction with other local organisations. Additionally, as primary care trusts will be able to bring together existing general practitioners and practice nurses with staff from community health trusts in many areas, some of the care that is provided particularly for patients living in the community may be better provided in future. For a range of chronic conditions, but particularly those affecting the elderly, primary care trusts offer new opportunities to provide better services in the new NHS.

Sierra Leone
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madame Speaker, I shall make a statement on Sierra Leone.
When I made my first statement to the House, I announced that the British military presence would be of value in securing two objectives: to get British nationals out and to get more United Nations forces in. I am pleased to report that we have made good progress on both objectives.
The United Nations force has expanded rapidly over the past month and, by next week, we expect it to be at its original authorised strength of 11,000. That successful build-up has been possible only because of the increased efficiency that the British presence has brought to logistic movements. We have provided security for the airport and provided a lead that has encouraged UNAMSIL contributors to deploy quickly.
The security situation has much improved, in part because of the United Kingdom presence. The rebel advance on Freetown has been reversed and their leader is under arrest. All the 500 UN personnel who had been seized by the rebels have been released, although we continue to watch with care the situation of Major Harrison and Mr. Smith.
We remain on course for our target of withdrawal by mid-June. The 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment has already withdrawn, and we expect 42 Commando to be withdrawn next week. At that point, the security of Lungi airport will be transferred to the United Nations. At the weekend, I spoke to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, who expressed his appreciation for what he described as the magnificent effort by the British troops in helping to stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone.
Much more remains to be done to ensure that the UN mission is not only at full strength, but an effective force. We will continue to provide valuable back-up to that UN operation, such as better communications to its units and military advice to its headquarters. The achievement of the past month, however, has been to avert an immediate threat to Freetown. As a result, Sierra Leone may have dropped out of the front pages—but we shall secure lasting stability there only if we, the international community, and the Government of Sierra Leone follow through the gains of the past month with a sustained effort. We must also expect to see some local reversals before we succeed in bringing the conflict to an end.
On Thursday, I shall be visiting Sierra Leone to explore with President Kabbah how we can take forward our work in partnership. Today, I wish to outline to the House our strategy for building on the progress of the past month. The strategy has three priorities: to repel the rebels; to restore the peace process; and to rebuild Sierra Leone.
The first priority is to equip the Government of Sierra Leone with an effective and accountable army of its own. Since the Lomé agreement of last year, Britain has been the lead nation in training a new Sierra Leone army. We propose to accelerate our training to achieve a rapid boost in troop capacity. We shall therefore be providing a short-term training team to provide an intensive infantry course for 1,000 new recruits—all of them screened
162
recruits over 18-years-old. The training will be conducted by about 180 personnel drawn from 2 Royal Anglian. They will be supported by HMS Argyll and RFA Sir Percivale, both of which will provide communications and back-up offshore. Additionally, 40 junior officers of the Sierra Leone army have this week commenced training in Ghana with the British military and advisory team there.
We anticipate that the intensive phase of initial training will be completed over the next two months. In the longer term, we will retain the lead in military training of the Sierra Leone army and in advising the Government of Sierra Leone on structures for the democratic accountability of that army. We will be deploying shortly the lead elements of a long-term training team of about 90 personnel, but their full deployment will depend on establishing a secure environment.
The second priority is to restore momentum to the peace process. Before the recent return to conflict, more than a third of the armed groups had entered into the disarmament process started by the Lomé agreement. It is vital that the option of demilitarisation remains open to all those willing to lay down their arms. The United Kingdom is by far the largest donor to the peace process in Sierra Leone, and we have committed about £70 million from the development budget. We will be seeking further support from other donors, including the World Bank, to help match the resources required by the shattered economy and society of Sierra Leone.
The amnesty within the Lomé agreement applied only to crimes committed before the date of its signature; it does not provide immunity for crimes committed in the recent conflict. The rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, is now under detention, and it is our view that he must remain so until he is brought to justice.
The third priority is to reduce the incentive which the illicit trade in diamonds has provided for armed conflict in Sierra Leone. Diamonds have fuelled the war. The people of Sierra Leone remain among the world's poorest while the wealth of its diamonds goes to rebels. In the medium term, the objective must be to bring the diamond area under the control of the Government and of the UN. In the meantime, we must take action outside Sierra Leone to regulate the trade in its diamonds. We are exploring with our partners in the Security Council our proposal for a UN resolution banning trade in diamonds from Sierra Leone except where that is certified as legitimate by the Government of Sierra Leone.
Any action to halt the flow of diamonds out of Sierra Leone and the flow of illicit weapons into Sierra Leone would have a much better prospect of success with the co-operation of neighbouring countries, especially Liberia. I regret to inform the House that there is continuing evidence establishing close links between the rebels in Sierra Leone and supporters in Liberia, and that Liberians are profiting from illegal diamond smuggling. We are consulting the United States and the European Commission on how we can jointly step up international pressure on Liberia to close down its links with the rebels.
The position in Sierra Leone has greatly improved in the month since my first statement to the House. British troops have made a big contribution to this turn-round. The House will want to record its appreciation of the professionalism with which they have carried out their duties and the commitment with which they have served in challenging circumstances.

163
However, there remains a long way yet to go before Sierra Leone is free from conflict. The best way that we can express our appreciation for the efforts of our troops is to make sure that we build on the gains that their presence has secured. We are determined to do so, and we will continue to make every realistic contribution that is open to Britain. Our objective is to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of stability and peace and are freed from the violence of a brutal rebel minority.
Mr. Francis Maude: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The House will want to join in congratulating our soldiers on their role. They have, as we have come to expect, discharged their duties with calm and distinction. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have been ready to support whatever tasks they might be asked to undertake.
Clearly, and as we would expect, the Government and the people of Sierra Leone have been extremely enthusiastic about the British presence. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what President Kabbah's view is about its effective military withdrawal, save for the continuing welcome training presence? In the light of his repeated statements that Britain will not let down Sierra Leone, is there not a danger that expectations about the duration and scope of the British military commitment were raised too high, and that as a consequence people in Sierra Leone will now feel let down?
Given that the United Nations mandate is not to defeat the Revolutionary United Front or take control of the diamond mining area, does the Foreign Secretary believe that the Sierra Leone army is now in a position to do either of those extremely important things? What is he doing to secure a change of mandate to one of peace enforcement?
In reality, the situation outside Freetown has barely improved, with Government forces suffering, we understand, setbacks in Lunsar and the area surrounding Kenema and Makeni. Was it really necessary for the rebuilding of the army that British weapons should have been supplied to so many child soldiers?
We would support any effective ban on diamond trading that cut off the RUF's life support. How does the Foreign Secretary square his proposal to the House today with the suggestion by the UN Secretary-General two weeks ago that he would effectively trade such an embargo for the detained UN peacekeepers? Given the news that a further group of UN peacekeepers may have been surrounded, does not the Foreign Secretary's initiative today cut across what Kofi Annan has already held out? Can he say a little more about how it would operate, given the fact, as he has mentioned, that most Sierra Leonean diamonds go out through Liberia or Burkina Faso, with the Liberian Government apparently taking some 80 per cent. of the proceeds of diamond trading from Sierra Leone?
Obviously, it is desirable that the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone are permitted to sell diamonds. That will be their lifeblood for creating a new durable civil order there. However, how will that be monitored in the light of evidence that the RUF is openly co-operating with pro-Government militias in towns such
164
as Kenema? How confident is the Foreign Secretary that the Belgian authorities, who are crucial in the matter, will co-operate with such an embargo? With Antwerp dominating that market, have they not been the major obstacle to any solution?
The Foreign Secretary is suggesting that the active phase of British military involvement in Sierra Leone is drawing to an end, giving place to a longer-term and lower-key commitment. Will he agree to a full inquiry into the events that made that commitment necessary in the first place?
People especially need to know why Brigadier Richards was withdrawn in early April, apparently against the advice of both the Sierra Leonean Government and the British high commissioner. People want to know what the involvement was of the Foreign Office last summer in pressuring President Kabbah into pardoning Foday Sankoh from his death sentence and installing him as vice-president of the country, with full control of the diamond mines. Was that not a fatal error that set him free to return to the path of murderous exploitation, and which made it necessary to send in British troops?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support—I look forward with keen anticipation to the day when he attacks me. In response to his last point, there was no pressure from the UK on President Kabbah to sign the Lomé agreement. Indeed, we were present only as an observer. We did not broker the agreement and we did not witness the agreement. Nor was there any need, when I saw President Kabbah subsequently, to press upon him the Lomé peace agreement, because the reality is that peace has been warmly welcomed throughout Sierra Leone.
If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that there was an alternative to the Lomé agreement, he must recognise that it was to fight the RUF—and President Kabbah's tragedy was that he had no combat troops. That is precisely why it is so crucial that our strategy now should be to provide him with those combat troops, so that he has the ability to restore law and order to his country.
I agree absolutely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties up country. In fairness to myself, I have made no attempt to disguise that. I specifically said that we must expect local reverses before we reach a conclusion to the conflict. However, it is important that we do not let those local reverses damage our determination or morale in Sierra Leone. That is why we shall persist with the strategy that I have set out. That strategy has to involve the supply of weapons to the army of Sierra Leone. There is no point in calling on the Government to assist in the defeat of the RUF and then complaining about the provision of weapons to the army that is to carry that out.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why so many child soldiers had been found with British weapons. As far as I am aware, one celebrated case has been discovered by the London Evening Standard. I noted with interest an article the other week by the man who discovered the child soldier. He said he was taken aback by the negative coverage and had intended his report to argue for more, not less, British involvement.
We have made vigorous representations to President Kabbah—and I shall do so again on Thursday—that we do not expect any child soldiers in the Sierra Leone army.

165
However, I remind the House that 5,000 children have been pressed into forces on both sides in Sierra Leone over the past nine years. It will not be possible to secure an instant transformation and an instant cessation of all child soldiers. Our commitment is to make sure that they are phased out and rehabilitated.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether Belgium would co-operate. If we secure a Security Council resolution, Belgium, like all members of the United Nations, will be obliged to abide by it. We shall certainly make sure that if we secure a resolution, it is workable. I agree with him that it would be easier to make it work if we had the co-operation of Liberia.
Lastly, I return to the right hon. Gentleman's initial statement, in which he asked how welcome the withdrawals were. I remind him and the House that from the time of my first statement a month ago, the Opposition's complaint has been about mission creep and the operation carrying on beyond the goals that we set out in that statement. I set out two objectives: that British nationals should come out and that UN troops should go in. We have secured both objectives. We have met them on schedule and we are now withdrawing. Those who complained about mission creep from day one are not in a position to complain that we are ending the mission, when we have completed it.
Mr. David WinnickBritish forces have done a wonderful job in Sierra Leone. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will demonstrate their total support for what has been done. Is it not appalling that while babies in that country have their limbs cut off by rebel forces, people in Europe—apparently even in this country—are dealing in diamonds sold by those rebel forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the failure of the peace agreement to which he has referred, there will be no lasting solution in Sierra Leone until the rebel forces are militarily defeated? Is not the task of the international community to secure a decent future for the people of Sierra Leone?
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that there will not be permanent peace and stability in Sierra Leone until the RUF ceases to exist as unit. There are two ways of securing that. One is to make sure, as I said in my statement, that the door to demilitarisation and disarmament remains open so that those who want to demilitarise can do so. There is evidence that more now wish to do that. At the same time, we must pursue the twin track of making it plain that there can be no military victory for the RUF, and the sooner that more of them opt for demilitarisation, the better for them and for Sierra Leone.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my support for the British forces? I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, particularly the part that dealt with diamonds. It is right to seek to cut off the supply of diamonds. Have the Government given any consideration to measures that might cut off the supply of arms to the rebel forces in Sierra Leone?
Have not the Lomé agreement and the United Nations mandate been overtaken by events, to the extent that it might even be argued that they have passed their sell-by
166
date? What, in the Foreign Secretary's view, should replace them? In particular, how should the United Nations mandate be strengthened?
By what criteria does the right hon. Gentleman think we will be able to judge the political success of the military deployment to Sierra Leone, and when might we make that judgment? Should we not accept, as the realistic position, that it will be some considerable time before the last British soldier can safely leave Sierra Leone?
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would assist in ending the conflict if weapons could be prevented from entering Sierra Leone. There is a UN sanctions committee administering the sanctions in respect of Sierra Leone and the rebels. We are making available to it the information that we have, and we hope that it will take a robust position. The key remains with the diamonds, because they pay for the weapons.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about changes to the Lomé peace agreement. Plainly, implicit in my statement is that changes must take place; for instance, the RUF members who took part in the recent rising plainly cannot continue to enjoy the privileges secured in the Lomé agreement. However, it would be a big mistake to dismantle the Lomé peace accord, because it has been of value in shifting the balance of forces in Sierra Leone. For instance, other rebel groups who signed the Lomé peace agreement have remained loyal to it. I do not think that we should give them the reason to believe that that loyalty is now no longer required.
I do not see a case for changing the mandate of the UN mission. It is a robust mandate and gives those involved the right to use lethal force not only to defend themselves, but to defend civilians. What is required is to make sure that we have a UN mission that can carry out the mandate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to indicate a note of caution about reaching a judgment on the past month. To be fair, we have not sought to claim that this is the end of the story. On the contrary, we have embarked on a long process. Our commitment to the training of an army in Sierra Leone is a long-term commitment. It will take time to secure, but we are determined to see it through.
Mr. Tony Worthington: I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary's report on the achievements of the British forces and the other activities in the past month.
On the subject of diamonds, the capacity of the Liberian diamond industry is said to be between 100,000 and 150,000 carats a year. Between 1994 and 1998, 6 million carats a year were exported from Liberia to Belgium. How can that be? What action is the Foreign Secretary taking on that? I noticed the omission of the words "De Beers". De Beers has an office in Monrovia, in Liberia, but has no office in Freetown. De Beers controls the diamond industry. What is it doing to help cut off the supply of the fuel of war in Africa?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend reinforces the importance of taking the action that we have outlined on the diamond trade. He is right to draw attention to the fact that most of the diamonds in Sierra Leone appear to be leaving the region via Liberia. With respect to De Beers, I would not

167
wish to comment on its activities within west Africa. It withdrew from Sierra Leone and, in fairness, it has been foremost among the diamond traders in proposing measures for international regulation of the diamond trade. A number of the diamond traders have begun to recognise that it is important for consumer confidence that consumers should know that when they buy a diamond, they are buying a clean diamond and not a conflict diamond.
Mr. Tom King: The Foreign Secretary has said that there is a long way to go. Clearly, on that long way, the establishment of a strong British Army training team is a sensible and intelligent proposal which the House will support, given the Army's well-established reputation for training armies in African countries such as Namibia and Zimbabwe. However, does he understand that while I wish to see the earliest possible withdrawal of the main British forces, I am surprised by his statement today—that it has been possible to do it as quickly as it has been done? I understand the desire to avoid allegations of mission creep, but we owe it to the forces that their outstanding contribution should endure. I hope that this has not been done in too precipitate a way.
Mr. Cook: I have made it plain that we have a long-term commitment to Sierra Leone and we are determined to see through the peace process in all reasonable ways we can, but we will not provide—as I have repeatedly stressed—combat troops for the front line. As for the process being quick, I remind the House that we said in the first week of May that we would withdraw in mid-June, and we are delivering on that schedule. I have endured allegations of mission creep with fortitude and patience for the past five weeks, and I am prepared to put up with them for a further five weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned that those allegations were misplaced or unreasonably influenced the Government's view, perhaps he should have a word with his Front Benchers and suggest that they were in error.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend has spoken only obliquely about the role of Belgium. Have there been direct negotiations between our Government and the Government of Belgium on this issue, and what sort of reply has he received?
Supporting what the British Army has done will take enormous amounts of reconstruction and infrastructure improvement in Sierra Leone. In particular, it will require the education of many of the young soldiers and the children who have become refugees or been made parentless. Is my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, working on policies to help in those tragic circumstances?
Mr. Cook: Both I and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), have at various times discussed the trade in diamonds with representatives of the Government of Belgium, and they will be fully involved—as a legitimate interest—in the debate on international measures. We have pushed the issue for the past year globally, and it now has a particular and immediate urgency in relation to Sierra Leone.
168
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is right to draw attention to the need for support for those who have been traumatised by the loss of childhood and the brutality of the past nine years in Sierra Leone. There are rehabilitation centres for the child soldiers and we need to ensure that more are provided, that they are adequate and that the children are brought to them as quickly as possible. However, we should not persuade ourselves that we shall quickly achieve the process of rehabilitating those children, or the economy and society of Sierra Leone, because that will require a serious, long-term commitment to development and rehabilitation.
Mr. Bowen Wells: I welcome both the return of the Government to the wholehearted support of efforts by the United Nations, and the progress that the Government and the Army have made in restoring some stability in Sierra Leone. Has any assessment been made of the long-term cost of rehabilitating, training and arming the Sierra Leone army, so that the rule of law may spread from Freetown to the country's borders and the democratically elected Government may remain in control?
Mr. Cook: Of course we have made estimates about the likely cost to Britain of the training commitment we are making. The commitment is for a short-term, intensive team in basic infantry training, followed by a longer-term commitment of some 90 personnel for the further training of the Sierra Leone army. We have costed that commitment, which is greater than that made by any other country, but we are looking to the international community to support us. We will need help to ensure that the peace process succeeds.
Ms Tess Kingham: For any peace in Sierra Leone to be lasting, it is obviously crucial that ex-combatants, especially children, be reintegrated successfully back into society. Many of the ex-combatants will be traumatised and will have psychological problems, because of the nature of the conflict. They will not have livelihoods, or even communities, to return to. What is being done to ensure that those people are not a seedbed for future conflict? Is there an international, UN-funded programme to reintegrate ex-combatants successfully?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend draws attention to what is a very important part of the disarmament process. Lomé set out a programme of disarmament, demilitarisation and reintegration. The British Government are by far the biggest single donor to that programme, and we will continue to provide a lead while looking to others to support it.
The reintegration programme may have to be reshaped in the light of experience. In particular, I think that we should now try to avoid having large numbers of those who come forward for disarmament spending long periods in camps. We should try to move them more quickly back into civilian life and to train them for the civilian employment to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Has the Secretary of State any plans to give the House a full account of Government policy—past, present and prospective—with regard to Sierra Leone? That could best

169
be done by means of a full day's debate on a substantive motion. Such a motion should be couched in terms of the House giving its authorisation and support for the policy, which it has not given hitherto.
Mr. Cook: Four statements on Sierra Leone have been made in the past five weeks for which the House has sat. On most of those occasions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has risen to ask not a question of substance, but the question that he has just repeated. The Government are entirely happy to defend our record on Sierra Leone at any time. We have done so repeatedly, and the House has been kept fully informed.
Jane Griffiths: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to the eradication of the trade in blood diamonds, which has fuelled conflict in Sierra Leone and elsewhere in Africa, and in other countries. My right hon. Friend will know that the US State Department estimates that the income from smuggled stones is upwards of £5 billion, and that that money buys a lot of AK47 rifles. About 80 per cent. of the global supply of diamonds is processed and sold in Antwerp—a city that the UN has described as a diamond smuggler's dream.
It is essential to eradicate the trade in blood diamonds, and a UN resolution may help in that respect. However, given that practices go on in Liberia and Belgium which could be described as questionable at the very least, a UN resolution by itself would not eradicate that trade. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that other measures will be taken?
Mr. Cook: The point of a UN resolution is to authorise the measures to enforce it. My hon. Friend raises the question of what is a very real challenge to us. It will be nearly impossible to secure 100 per cent. success in the objective that she sets out. If we were to set ourselves a target of 100 per cent. success, we would quickly become discouraged and turn away from a course that plainly must be undertaken. However, even partial success could still be of great value in reducing the flow of funds to the RUF and in reducing the prices obtained by those who succeed in smuggling. All of that would represent a substantial gain. I hope that we can achieve measures that are as effective as possible but, in this case, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State give a slightly fuller response to the question put to him by the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)? Would it ease the situation if De Beers closed down its purchasing office in Liberia? What discussions have the Government held with the Belgian Government about encouraging De Beers to take that step?
Mr. Cook: The future of the De Beers operation in Liberia will depend entirely on the extent to which the company can become a party in the implementation of a UN sanction. If we can use De Beers to make sure that it does not purchase diamonds smuggled out of Sierra Leone, the company can become part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter, published in today's edition of
170
The Independent, from a number of people from Sierra Leone who live in London? They are worried about the perception of a reduction in the British presence at this time. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when he meets President Kabbah, efforts will be made to send clear signals about Britain's long-term commitment to achieving a long-lasting solution? Will he also take the opportunity to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ensure that sufficient resources are made available for the Defence, International Development and Foreign Office budgets so that Britain can continue to play the positive role internationally that it displayed in connection with Sierra Leone?
Mr. Cook: I regularly discuss public spending priorities with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend suggests.
I am visiting Sierra Leone on Thursday precisely to demonstrate our commitment to taking the peace process forward. President Kabbah has warmly welcomed what Britain has done. I am sure that what I have announced today in terms of a commitment to accelerating the training of an army for his Government will also be welcome.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that money from the sale of diamonds which should have been used for health and education purposes to improve the lot of Sierra Leonean citizens has instead been used to buy arms and squandered on the civil war? When will he deal with the other side of the equation and introduce legislation to control the activities of the arms trade, and arms brokers in particular?
Mr. Cook: The Department of Trade and Industry, as the hon. Lady knows, is examining introducing a Bill based on the recent consultation exercise. However, we have no evidence of any British-based broker being involved in supplying weapons to the rebels in Sierra Leone, and would happily receive any information that was provided to us on that front.
I welcome the close interest that has been shown in these exchanges about the extent to which the illicit diamond trade fuels the conflict in Sierra Leone. This will give us added strength in our representations, and I hope that the extent to which parliamentary and public interest in the matter is increasing will be of value to us in the United Nations when we seek that resolution.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary join me in welcoming the highly successful operation carried out by the spearhead battalions of the Parachute and Marine Regiments? Will he also accept that there is a world of difference between mission creep involving a highly combative situation and mission creep whereby we are supplying support and logistical help to Sierra Leone? Will he, therefore, set out a programme whereby distinct objectives are to be achieved before troops training the Sierra Leonean army are withdrawn?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to echo the hon. Gentleman's praise for the professionalism of the two units that have been involved in providing a presence in Freetown. The 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment deployed extremely rapidly, and very professionally

171
carried out an evacuation. Both it and 42 Commando have maintained a very useful presence in Sierra Leone, and have helpfully made sure that the UN presence was increased and strengthened.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I note that the accusations of mission creep are now shading. What I announced today is not a new commitment by Britain. For a year, we have been committed to the training of the army of Sierra Leone. That will take time. The ultimate objective is to ensure that we provide a disciplined and effective fighting force for the Government of Sierra Leone, but one that will also transform the equations within Sierra Leone and is accountable to a legitimate Government.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State agree that even if the Government did not broker the Lomé agreement, they have certainly endorsed it and continued to give it support? The agreement provided the rebel leader with a place in the Sierra Leonean Government and access to the diamonds which were the sinews of war. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that in brokering or supporting any other peace agreement, it would be wise to ensure that the military arm and civil power of the Government are, like the army in Sierra Leone, in tip-top condition and are maintained in that condition, and that the rebels are not allowed benefits that may ultimately result in the breakdown of an agreement, such as occurred under the Lomé agreement?
Mr. Cook: I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have indeed supported the Lomé agreement. Indeed, no other country has done more to try and make that peace process a reality. I think that we were right to do so and are right to continue to do so.
It was not the Lomé agreement that deprived the Sierra Leonean Government of an army—it was the mutiny in 1997, in which their former army went over to make common cause with the rebels. One of the successes of Lomé—and we should not lose sight of this—is that those former members of the Sierra Leonean army have come over to the Government and have been fighting on the side of the Government, not of the rebels, over the past month. That would not have been possible without the Lomé agreement.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that in this expedition, as in other recent military operations, a disproportionately heavy burden has fallen on the British aimed forces by comparison with the armed forces of some of our continental friends and allies, notwithstanding their unwise commitment to the creation of a separate European security and defence identity? Given that it is our armed forces who will have to restore the situation, what negotiations has he undertaken with our continental allies to ensure that they will take up the burden of the continuing commitment in Sierra Leone, once our forces have, yet again, pulled the fat out of the fire?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's question demonstrates nothing more than his obsession with Europe. We have received much international support for
172
the exercise and for what we are currently doing in Sierra Leone. It is a country with which we have long historic ties. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, we continue to have long community ties with the country. It is thus perfectly reasonable for our colleagues to look to us to take the lead—just as we would look to France to take the lead in one of its former colonies.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Despite the Foreign Secretary's earlier dismissal of the point, I urge him to acknowledge that the UN mandate needs to be changed from a peacekeeping to a peace enforcement one, given that, at the time of the withdrawal, there is no peace to keep. Does he realise that there is a risk that, if UN troops are put back under the same, failed mandate, the position would be insecure for our troops if they were sent back to pick up the pieces?
Mr. Cook: It is certainly important that the UN force be as effective as possible. That has been our policy; it will continue to be the objective of the back-up we provide to the UN forces. I repeat that, if the hon. Gentleman studies the Security Council resolution that establishes UNAMSIL, he will find that it is very robust; it provides for lethal force to be used. It certainly mandated UNAMSIL to use lethal force in the circumstances in which the troops found themselves in the first week of May. The reason that it was not used had nothing to do with the failure of the mandate, but everything to do with the failure of effectiveness of the force. That is what should be tackled—not the mandate.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Has distribution of British arms to the Sierra Leonean army begun, and, if so, under what conditions? When the Foreign Secretary meets President Kabbah on Thursday, will he seek further assurances that those arms will be used neither by child soldiers nor by those aged under 18? What assurances and commitments will he seek from President Kabbah to ensure that those arms do not fall into the hands of any other militia groups—whether or not they are currently aligned with the Sierra Leonean army?
Mr. Cook: A quantity of rifles has been distributed to the army of Sierra Leone during the past few weeks. A similar quantity remains under our control in that country. It will be released only under the close supervision of our officers there and only on the clear and explicit understanding that the rifles will not be given to anyone aged under 18. Indeed, President Kabbah has given us an undertaking that he will not have under 18-year-old children in the army. He has warned army officers that they will face disciplinary action if they recruit children under that age.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take against companies based in London that deal in diamonds in order to promote conflict in the countries of Africa?
Mr. Cook: In the event that we secure our UN resolution, such activity would be illegal in relation to Sierra Leone. We shall certainly fully uphold the UN line.

Point of Order
4.14 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you back to Question 5 during Health questions? On three occasions, when questioned closely by the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State replied by questioning Opposition policies. That was flattering and interesting, but, under our rules of order, should not Ministers, when questioned about their Departments, reply by answering the question rather than simply by questioning the Opposition? Does not that turn Parliament on its head? What is the point of Question Time?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for comments made by Members—that includes Members on the Government Front Bench. However, to some extent, he is correct. In this House, it is not for Ministers to question the Opposition. The Executive are in charge; it is for the Opposition and for Government Back Benchers to scrutinise the Government, and for the Government to answer questions. No doubt, the time will come when we shall want to hear from the Opposition what their policies are—[Interruption.] Order. However, that is not for me to suggest; it is for the future. At present, it is for Ministers to answer on behalf of the Executive.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)),
That the matter of Social Exclusion in Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its vonsideration—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Question agreed to.

Taxation (Right to Know)
4.15 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Treasury to send to each household and business an annual statement of the rates of each tax and excise duty; and for connected purposes.
Thousands of hours are spent by Members of Parliament in debates, questions and correspondence about taxation. Since May 1997, there have been no fewer than 3,842 oral and written parliamentary questions in this House and in another place, 61 Adjournment debates and 50 early-day motions. For today's purposes, I am peculiarly grateful to two individuals: first, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and secondly, the president of the Adam Smith Institute, Dr. Madsen Pirie.
We know that we are more heavily taxed than ever before, but we are told less about that taxation by the Government. My right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that a typical family pays an extra £669 in tax a year under this Government. We know that from House of Commons figures, just as we know from the figures published in the Red Book that the share of gross domestic product accounted for by taxation is scheduled to rise from 35.3 to 37.3 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2001–02. We also know from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Office for National Statistics, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Chantrey Vellacott, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses that taxes have risen, that they are rising and that they are scheduled to continue to rise.
That is why we at least now know what Labour meant when it said it would be a people's Government. People who are married, people who pay mortgages, people who own cars, people who put petrol in them, people who acquire savings, people who own pensions and people who run businesses all now face a higher tax burden under this Government. The effect of that pitiful state of affairs is that tax freedom day in this country—the day on which we cease to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and start to work for ourselves—is 30 May. Of course, that is 20 days better than in euroland, where tax freedom day is 19 June, but, importantly, it is no fewer than 20 days worse than in the United States, where tax freedom day falls on 10 May.
In the 1950s, the late Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, cut taxes to allow money to fructify in the pockets of the people. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends think that this Chancellor picks the pockets of the people, and I assert that he plunders the pockets of the people on an unprecedented scale. Unprecedented plunderer though he is, he offers little information about his taxes.
The Chancellor has repeatedly refused to publish the figures that show the impact of direct and indirect taxes on a typical household, or on households in the other income deciles, despite the fact that Conservative Governments in office consistently provided that information for 15 successive years from 1981 to 1996. Rightly, he has been criticised by the Select Committee on the Treasury in its report on the March 2000 Budget, paragraph 35 of which states that in the interests of transparency, such figures should in future be published in the Red Book.

175
Meanwhile, the insouciant Chancellor is busily publishing and distributing his so-called Budget letter. That letter is nothing but tendentious propaganda financed from the public purse. The Chancellor was rightly excoriated by the same Treasury Committee report for that behaviour. In paragraph 90, the Committee argued that if the Chancellor intends, as he has previously suggested, that in future his letter should go not only to the current 400,000 recipients but to every household in the country, a body fully independent of the Government should be involved in its preparation, to guarantee its impartiality.
That observation by the Select Committee leads me to the first of my three proposals. In my Bill, the Treasury is required to prepare and send to every household and business an annual statement of the rates of each tax and excise duty. What criteria should that statement fulfil? First, it should state the rates of those taxes and any change that those rates represent upwards or downwards from the previous year. Secondly, each tax should be in one or more of three broad categories—taxes on individuals' income, taxes on business activity and taxes on personal expenditure.
The third criterion that the statement should fulfil is that instead of taking a narrow and inward-looking parochial view, it should offer a comparison with the tax rates that appertain in the countries that are our principal industrial competitors. Fourthly, and crucially—although I doubt whether this will be music to the Chancellor's ears—the statement should be adjudicated by and subject to the approval of an independent person, such as the Comptroller and Auditor General, before it is routed through the Inland Revenue to every taxpayer in the country. At least that will provide some transparency.
My second proposal is that the proportion of the purchase price of key products that is represented by tax and excise duty should be publicly displayed on the bills that customers pay. I do not know how many hon. Members, or people outside, are aware that 29.5 per cent. of the price of a pint of beer, 50.5 per cent. of the price of a bottle of wine, 61.3 per cent. of the price of a bottle of whisky, 79.3 per cent. of the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes, and a staggering 84.9 per cent. of the price of a litre of unleaded petrol goes directly to Treasury
176
coffers. That information is important. It should be known, and it needs to be communicated directly from now on to unsuspecting taxpayers across the United Kingdom.
My third suggestion is that each year the Treasury should publish an assessment of the merits of each tax, considering not only its yield but its administration cost, its compliance cost and its economic cost in terms of lost output and diminished competitiveness. I think, for example, of inheritance tax, the yield of which is now only one twentieth of the value for which it accounted in 1909. Many countries have at different times and for varying periods got rid of such a tax. Right hon. and hon. Members know that as long ago as 1985 the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation argued that the cost involved in collecting the tax rendered it useless. We need a proper debate on that important subject.
The myriad complexities of our taxation system defy ready understanding by a busy layman. We know that too much tax is taken from too many people, who are told too little about it. It is time that the Chancellor's sultans of spin were brought to heel and a new era of openness began in which the individual could discover at a glance how, when and to what extent he or she was being fleeced by the Treasury. Providing more information to the public about taxation would create more incentive for the Government to simplify and reduce it.
That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. It is right in itself, it will be popular with the public, it is long overdue, and I hope that the House will give it warm and enthusiastic support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Nicholas Hawkins, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Dr. Julian Lewis, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Prior, Mr. David Ruffley.

TAKATION (RIGHT TO KNOW)
Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to require the Treasury to send to each household and business an annual statement of the rates of each tax and excise duty; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 137].
Orders of the Day

  Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I also remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  4.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I gather that several colleagues have been delayed by late flights. Doubtless they will join us shortly. [Interruption.] The flights were not fixed by me.
  The Bill paves the way for the most complex changes in policing practice and culture ever attempted—changes that, if successful, will provide as good a model for policing as can be found anywhere in the world. The philosophy, size, structure, composition, training, accountability, human rights ethos, planning and information systems and community base of Northern Ireland's police will all change if the Bill is enacted.
  It is therefore hardly surprising that such a complex task should spark controversy. As well as setting out a radical vision of modern civic policing that is rooted in the whole community—and will draw its legitimacy and strength from its support in all parts of the community—the Bill seeks to create a police service that has entrenched respect for human rights without compromising its effectiveness, and offers full accountability to the public without denting its operational efficiency.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: We acknowledge that the Secretary of State has a parliamentary job to do today. However, it would have been more fitting to start with a whole-hearted tribute to the astonishing achievements, courage and effectiveness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over many years, during which it has proved itself to be probably the most courageous police force in the land.
  Mr. Mandelson: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, simply because I have done as he asked on many occasions and I shall—
  Mr. Soames: Do it again.
  Mr. Mandelson: And I shall do so again shortly.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Mandelson: No, I wish to continue with my speech.
  The achievement of the goals that I described will generate considerable debate about the Bill in the Chamber and in Committee. I intend to approach that
  178
  debate with an open mind. I readily accept that the Bill will require fine tuning as we proceed with the legislative process.
  Nevertheless, I contend strongly that as people turn from the generalisations to the detail of our proposals, and when they study the reality of the Bill's contents as opposed to some of the rhetoric and the hyperbole that has surrounded it recently, they will recognise that, in spirit as well as letter, we are implementing the commission report that has given rise to the Bill and is named after its chairman, Chris Patten, to whom I pay tribute.
  Of course, such reports inevitably set objectives, without always specifying how they are to be achieved, and not every aspect needs legislation for its implementation. If an aspect does not appear in the Bill, that does not mean that it is not happening or that it will not happen. The House will wish to know that I am today publishing in Belfast a detailed plan setting out the Government's implementation of each of Patten's recommendations. Copies of that plan will be available in the Vote Office this evening.
  The important thing is to ensure that the principles for policing originally laid down in the Good Friday agreement have been fulfilled, and I firmly believe that they will be. It is as well to recall those principles, as they go to the heart of the cross-community support that our reforms are seeking, which is vital for the new beginning that we want.
  The agreement wanted a police service that is professional, effective and efficient; fair and impartial; accountable, but free from partisan political control; representative of the society that it polices and conforming with human rights norms; capable of maintaining law and order, including responding effectively to crime, any terrorist threat and public order problems; capable of delivering a policing service in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels; and with the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility throughout its structure and ranks. We are fulfilling all those principles in the Bill, and in doing so we are creating a unique opportunity for policing in Northern Ireland to move forward.
  The RUC has led the world in counter-terrorist policing. We now want it—as Northern Ireland passes into a more peaceful environment—to lead the world in normal community partnership policing as well. I would add one further principle to those that I have listed: the principle that a police service, and the public that it serves, should honour, not denigrate, its members, especially those who have made sacrifices in the course of their professional duties that the rest of us would not dream of having to make in the course of our entire lives. For this, the RUC rightly received the signal honour of being awarded the George Cross by Her Majesty the Queen. No one will now take that honour from those who have served during this terrible period of conflict.
  Of course, policing in Northern Ireland has been controversial. For some people, the police can do no wrong; for others, they can do no right. That is an inevitable source of division. I do not want to dwell on the past except to say this: in the terrorist war that Northern Ireland has experienced, injury, fatalities, indignity and suffering were routinely incurred by many in the community.

  179
  We will not forget those who have borne the brunt of this conflict. For those RUC officers who have paid dearly, I say that their legacy will endure, their memorials will be maintained, and the permanent RUC George Cross foundation, for which the Bill makes provision, will keep their name alive for ever. We should think of doing no less, however much we wish to concentrate—as the Bill does—on creating a police service for the future, rather than on raking over the coals of the past.
  I earnestly believe that this is what the police themselves want. They want to draw a line. They want a fresh beginning in the conditions of peace and normal policing that the new situation in Northern Ireland offers to them, but they want to move forward without dishonouring the past. I am determined that it should happen in this way.
  What, then, is the future for policing envisaged in the Bill? The Patten report is clear that policing is a matter for the community as a whole, not simply for the police. The police will undoubtedly remain the principal actors, but they should work in partnership with the community and other agencies. That new civic-based concept is embodied in the Bill's provisions for community policing, the restructuring of the police service into more autonomous district commands, the creation of new district policing partnerships and the provision of consultative forums between the police and the community at local level.
  The report made sweeping recommendations to improve police accountability. The Bill provides for the Chief Constable to be publicly accountable to a strong and independent policing board. The board will set policing objectives, priorities and performance targets and will be able to obtain explanations from the Chief Constable for his operational decisions, while those will remain, rightly, his alone. The board, in other words, will be regulator to the Chief Constable's service provider.
  In addition, the new office of police ombudsman is being created and will become operational in October, with enhanced powers to investigate complaints about police conduct. I believe that I am right to resist the suggestion that the ombudsman should also have powers to review the policies and practices of the police service—although if, in the course of investigating individual complaints, she wishes to raise wider issues, she may of course do so.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will there be provision for that in the Bill?
  Mr. Mandelson: There will be full provision for those and all the functions and responsibilities of the ombudsman.
  The Bill will lay the foundations for a human rights-based approach to policing. There will be a new oath affirming commitment to fundamental human rights and according equal respect to the legitimate and democratic beliefs and traditions of all individuals. A new code of ethics will lay down standards of conduct and practice to which both current and future members of the police service will sign up. Finally, there will be a new training, education and development strategy for the police service. Human rights training for all officers will be a fundamental requirement of the new strategy.
  180
  The House will start to appreciate just how far reaching are the provisions of the Bill, and I want briefly to highlight the different parts of it. Part I creates the new policing board, as I have already described. That will replace the current Police Authority, and I shall come back to it in a moment.
  Part II makes provision for district and community policing arrangements. The new partnerships will serve as consultative forums between the community and the police. We will examine whether they should have power to purchase services on top of normal policing following the outcome of consultation on the criminal justice review, but for now I do not believe that it is advisable for the district partnerships to have an executive or expenditure role, as that would risk undermining the police service's local operations.
  Part II also provides for the restructuring of the police service into district commands. That is essential for the development of community partnership policing. The district commander will issue a local policing plan setting out arrangements for the policing of the district. Those plans will be drawn up in consultation with the district policing partnership.
  Part III reforms the police planning process in accordance with Patten's recommendations. The board, not the Secretary of State, will have the lead role in the planning process. It will agree and issue the annual policing plan, prepared by the Chief Constable.
  Part IV places a duty on the policing board and the Chief Constable to secure "best value" in the way in which their functions are exercised in terms of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of expenditure. It has been argued that the board will have a narrower function in those matters than the present authority. That is not the case. The board will have much greater powers and responsibility than the authority in terms of planning and objective setting for policing, monitoring police performance and holding the police to account.
  Part V deals with the functions of the Chief Constable and the police service. It requires all officers in carrying out their functions to have regard to the code of ethics issued by the Chief Constable, which will bring the new focus on human rights into all aspects of policing and will be issued in conjunction with the policing board.
  Dr. Norman A Godman: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no limit on the policing board's ability to initiate an inquiry?
  Mr. Mandelson: I should like to come to that in a moment.
  Part V provides for the police service to be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable, as Patten insisted. That is a fundamental principle. The police must retain operational responsibility, but must also account for their actions. Part V also makes provision for the recruitment of police officers and police service support staff. However, I should stress that, notwithstanding an element of independent validation of recruitment, the Chief Constable will be the final arbiter of who is admitted to the police and the police reserve based on merit. Part V includes special measures to change the religious composition of the police service—the so-called 50-50 recruitment.

  181
  The Bill makes provision for periodic review of the need for that measure. I have listened to concerns about the provision that will cause it to fall absolutely after 10 years, and I accept that that time limit will be unnecessary if the system is being reviewed regularly. I also believe that it is desirable to aggregate out the balanced recruitment that we want over a period of years if it falls short in a particular year.
  Part V enables regulations to be made to enhance pensions and gratuities for officers leaving the police service under voluntary severance arrangements. The Government have made it clear that we will be sympathetic and generous in our approach to officers leaving, whether they are regulars or reserves. The provision enables me to take that approach. It also requires members of the police service to register their interests and associations. Finally, part V will enable me to regulate the emblems and flags of the police service and issue guidance on the police service's deployment of equipment designed for use in maintaining or restoring public order. Naturally, I am obliged to consult before doing so.
  Part VI includes enhanced powers for the policing board to require reports from the Chief Constable on any matter connected with the policing of Northern Ireland. It also makes provision for a new power for the policing board to initiate an inquiry into any aspect of the police service. The Government agree with Patten that the policing board needs that power to enable it to hold the Chief Constable to account effectively. However, Patten acknowledged that that was an extreme power, ranking it alongside the board's ability to call on the Chief Constable to retire. The Government have therefore included safeguards on the exercise of the power, which Patten said would be necessary.
  Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
  Mr. Mandelson: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
  I have listened to a wide range of opinions, which hold that the Government have taken those safeguards too far and set too many limitations on the use of that power. I am prepared to strike a different balance on that, but am concerned to protect the police from the risk of vexatious, repetitive or capricious behaviour by the board in initiating inquiries and reports. That probably meets the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
  Mr. McCartney: On balanced recruitment under part V, has the Secretary of State taken into consideration equality legislation and human rights under the European convention on human rights, which would preclude members of one community having the same rights as members of another?
  Mr. Mandelson: All existing and proposed legislation is checked to ensure that it complies with current EU directives. Obviously, if future directives have a bearing on the Bill, we will seek to ensure that there is consistency and compliance or, where necessary, derogations.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Returning to recruitment, the Secretary of State will know that I spent
  182
  time patrolling the streets of Northern Ireland with the RUC, including Catholic members who made it clear to me why there were so few Catholics in the RUC. He will know also that a survey showed that 70 per cent. of Catholics believe that the main reason why Catholics do not join the RUC is intimidation and threats from the IRA and others. What reason will Catholics now have to join the RUC when the IRA remains fully armed and, as he will know from security reports and beatings in west Belfast, threats and intimidation continue?
  Mr. Mandelson: I am not sure that I follow the connection between the hon. Gentleman's two statements. In response to his first point, I readily accept that intimidation by the IRA has discouraged and, in some cases, stopped members of the Catholic side of the community who would otherwise be prepared to join the RUC. However, I cannot accept that that is the only reason why Catholics and nationalists have not joined. The hon. Gentleman has only to consider the latest survey evidence, which was issued as recently as February, to realise why they have not joined.
  One third of Catholics believe that the police do not treat both sides of the community equally. Three quarters of Catholics and nearly two thirds of Protestants believe that there are too few Catholics in the police force. The fact that there are too few Catholics in the RUC and that there is not, among parts of the Catholic and nationalist community, a sense of acceptance of the police directly discourages individuals from offsetting that imbalance and signing up. We are implementing the Patten recommendations to overcome that extreme religious imbalance in the composition of the police and the perception among some on the Catholic and nationalist side of the community that the police are not owned—in the most general sense of the term—by the community as a whole.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with inquiries, and he will recognise that the power to order an inquiry is very important. What steps are provided for, in the Bill or otherwise, to ensure that those inquiries are held in a judicial manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, that those who appear before an inquiry are properly represented and have the opportunity of cross-examination and that relevant witnesses have to give their testimony on oath?
  Mr. Mandelson: We are not constructing or making available to the board courts of law in order that it can make what may be simple and straightforward inquiries into police behaviour and practices. I am satisfied that we will be able to agree with the board the approach that it will take. I am concerned that the principle of accountability and the right of the policing board to make inquiries, obtain information and issue reports as it thinks fit should be properly supported in legislation and by me.
  I am concerned only that that right and power, which has been described as extreme, should not be abused in any way. That is why I propose to put in place limited safeguards, although I readily accept that in the Bill as drafted, I have probably gone too far in the limitations that I seek to impose on the policing board in exercising that power.
  Mr. William Thompson: Does the Secretary of State accept that Roman Catholics failed to

  183
  join the RUC not just because of intimidation, but because they had a more important political objection? The RUC was a British police force, and, as nationalists, Roman Catholics did not wish to be identified with such a force. Will that objection not remain despite all the changes?
  Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a case for us to address the issue of the symbols, the insignia and the associations that the RUC has had with the British state. I am somewhat surprised that he should lead us down that road, but perhaps I can deal with his point in a moment, when I come to it in my speech.
  Part VII deals with changes to the powers and functions of the police ombudsman. I believe that she is broadly happy with them, but she will want to be assured that she has all the papers and information necessary for her to do her job. I am sympathetic to that need, and will ensure that it is properly met by the Bill.
  Part VIII deals with a number of what are termed miscellaneous and supplementary provisions, including the establishment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. I am delighted that that provision has met with wide approval in Northern Ireland, because, as I have said, I think it essential for us to honour the sacrifices and the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, while preparing the police for the new beginning that they need.
  All these reforms present a radical agenda, and we need help with their implementation. Last week, I was pleased to be able to announce the appointment of the independent commissioner who will oversee the reforms. The appointment of Tom Constantine, a widely respected former head of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, has been widely supported in Northern Ireland. None the less, I have listened carefully to representations made to me that the office of oversight commissioner should be put on a statutory basis in the Bill. I have been persuaded by the arguments, and intend that to happen.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am anxious that the Secretary of State should not leave the subject of part VIII without answering a question.
  My understanding is that clauses 69 and 70 allow for the continuation of a police reserve, but do not assert the case for its continuation. Will the right hon. Gentleman at some point clarify the position? Will he explain his intentions in regard to the reserve? I understood from the debate generated by Patten that Patten sought to have it removed.
  Mr. Mandelson: I announced in the House on, I think, 19 January that we had accepted Patten's proposal that the full-time reserve should be phased out, and that will indeed happen. It will, of course, depend on the chief constable's assessment of the security situation, but it does not require a power in the Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that clarity is needed, I should be prepared to consider an amendment making it clear that I have the power to implement the recommendation for the phasing out of the full-time reserve.
  Finally, let me address the question of the name of Northern Ireland's police, which, in Patten's and the Government's view, is strongly linked to the new start
  184
  that we want in policing. Many people in Northern Ireland—I mean largely, but not exclusively, Unionists—have never set their face against change, accept the case for reform allowing recruitment from all parts of the community, but equally are determined to protect the good name, the honour and the record of the RUC and, in particular, want it to be clear that the RUC is not being denigrated or disbanded. I believe that the final form of the Bill will achieve that.
  On 17 May, in the House, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I said that I believed that the sensible way forward was to provide in the Bill a legal description that incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary—effectively the title deeds, as I put it, of the new service—making it clear that disbandment is not taking place, while at the same time introducing a new name, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which will be used for all working and operational purposes. That remains my view and my preferred option, and it remains the Government's judgment of the sensible way forward. It also corresponds to what Patten himself said. Paragraph 17.7 of the report stated:
  the link between the RUC and the new Police Service should be recognized.
  I think that, in the provision that I have potentially described, we will satisfy not only those who want to see that the RUC is not being disbanded and that that body of constables is being carried over, evolving into the new police service, but, equally, those who—rightly, in the Government's view—believe that the new working, day-to-day, operational name for police in Northern Ireland must change to signal the new beginning that we are creating, without which we do not believe that it will be possible to recruit from all parts of the community, as is desirable and necessary for that new beginning to take place.
  The Bill is intended to lay the foundations for, as I said, a genuine new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland. I have already said that the Bill may not yet be perfect in every respect. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and I will consider further constructive changes and amendments to the Bill as it progresses in Committee. We have open minds. I have already had extensive discussions with all the parties, all of whom have already suggested a host of improvements and changes—most of which I can already see are acceptable to the Government, because they are entirely consistent and compatible with the Patten recommendations and the thrust of the Bill. Suggestions must, however, be aimed at creating a more modern, efficient, representative and accepted police service.
  I am not prepared to assist those who are more interested in constraining the police service than in strengthening it, or who are keener to look backwards to old scars, divisions and disputes, than to look forwards to the new era in policing that we are trying to create. That is what the Good Friday agreement called for. It is also what Patten is about and what the Bill, I am confident, will achieve.
  On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill a Second Reading as it fails to preserve the proud title and insignia of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; enables the political representatives of paramilitary organisations to sit on the Policing Board and District Policing Partnerships without a start to the decommissioning of illegally-held arms and explosives; provides inadequate safeguards against people convicted of terrorist offences serving on the Policing Board or the District Policing Partnerships; and threatens significantly to increase the politicisation of policing in Northern Ireland."
  I begin by expressing total admiration for the courage and achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, George Cross. For the past 30 years, the RUC has stood as the thin green line between the rule of law and a descent into anarchy. In doing so, it has borne the brunt of the most wicked and vile acts of cowardly terrorism.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I have only just begun—but go on.
  Mr. McWalter: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his reasoned amendment is not exactly even-handed between those who are of the nationalist persuasion and those who are of the Unionist persuasion?
  Mr. MacKay: It might be helpful if I explained my amendment in due course, rather than in the first sentence of my speech.
  Recently, Lord Fitt said:
  The RUC are the people who have held together the community in Northern Ireland. There would have been absolute anarchy but for the efforts of the RUC.
  Lord Fitt is absolutely right. Without the RUC, the opportunities for a lasting peace created by the Belfast agreement would not exist. It is largely thanks to the RUC, supported by the armed forces, that we can be confident that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined only by democracy and never by violence.
  The RUC has responded to violence with the highest standards of discipline and professionalism. I utterly reject the claims of those who describe the RUC as a sectarian force. In our view, it has more than demonstrated its even-handedness and impartiality. Most recently, it has stood literally in the middle between loyalists and nationalists at Drumcree. The last time that a RUC officer was murdered was there, in 1998—a young Catholic man was killed by loyalist thugs as he sought selflessly to serve the whole community.
  The RUC's contribution has not been apparent only in Northern Ireland. It has stood as the first line of defence against terrorism in mainland Great Britain and also in the Republic, where it has thwarted many potential loyalist atrocities. Anyone who doubts that should talk to the Metropolitan police, the Garda Siochana and the many other professional police services throughout the world, including the FBI, which over the years have benefited from the RUC's expertise. Only recently, RUC officers have been serving with distinction in the Balkans, in the most difficult of circumstances.
  186
  The RUC has time and again proved itself to be the most effective and professional anti-terrorist force in the world. I say without hesitation that everybody on these islands who cares about the rule of law owes the most profound debt of gratitude to the RUC. We should never forget the terrible price that has been paid. The facts bear constant repetition. The House will be aware that 302 officers have been murdered and that more than 10,000 have been maimed or injured. The RUC's sacrifice is without equal. That is why the award of the George Cross by Her Majesty in the deeply moving ceremony at Hillsborough in April was so richly deserved.
  The RUC's record makes even more despicable the campaigns of vilification that have been waged against the force by paramilitaries—republican and so-called loyalists—and their political representatives. Their opposition to the RUC is based upon what the force stands for, which is law, order and liberty. They have used every possible means to discredit and undermine it. They have been out to destroy the RUC and to take over the policing of what they regard as their areas. That is part of the political motivation that lies behind the mutilations, shootings, beatings and expulsions that are still being carried out by organisations that are supposedly on ceasefire.
  These people wish the rule of law to be supplanted by the bullet and the baseball bat, with paramilitaries acting as self-appointed judges, juries and executioners. That would be justice, paramilitary style. Thankfully, the RUC has prevented them from succeeding. It is worth reminding those with a misinformed view of the RUC that, in facing the sustained terrorist campaign, the RUC has not been given any special privileges or immunities that have put it beyond or above the law. Its officers must operate within the rule of law, and they are as accountable to the law as anyone else in the United Kingdom. The RUC remains resolutely independent of politicians and attempts at political interference. In a democracy, we should not have it any other way.
  Nor is the RUC a force that has resisted change. It is now almost unrecognisable from the force of 30 years ago. As the Chief Constable has said, no one has been more embracing of change than the RUC. Given its record, it is hardly surprising that the RUC scores among the highest overall acceptability rates of any police service in western Europe.
  Mr. McWalter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I shall in a second. I have given way once. It was not very constructive last time.
  In the most recent review of community attitudes, 85 per cent. of Protestants and 59 per cent. of Catholics expressed confidence in the police, while in the Patten report itself the figures are 81 per cent. and 43 per cent. respectively. At a local level, according to Patten, the approval rating from Catholics who had direct contact with the police was 69 per cent., while for Protestants it was 77 per cent.
  Those are hardly the kind of approval ratings given to a police service that is unacceptable in nationalist areas or, as Sinn Fein-IRA disgracefully claim, that is nothing more than the armed wing of Unionism, so let us hear no more of the smears, distortions and downright lies that are

  187
  levelled against the RUC. No one has suffered more. No one is more deserving of our praise and no one stands to gain more from the establishment of a lasting peace. It has been a real force for stability in Northern Ireland. The RUC is a police force that, after 30 years, can truly walk with its head held high.
  The Bill gives effect to those recommendations in the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland. One of the most serious deficiencies of that report is its singular failure to give all but the most cursory of recognitions to the achievements and sacrifices of the RUC. Therefore, I am pleased that the House has the opportunity to put that right today and that the Bill proposes the establishment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. That is a welcome initiative, and one that we fully support.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman has said on many occasions that he supports the Belfast agreement. He implied some months ago that his party supported the Patten report but, on the basis of what he has just said, it does not seem that he is saying anything positive about Patten. Can he clarify the position of his party? Is his support for the Belfast agreement nothing more than words? Is the reality that he is some sort of Conservative Leninist, adopting an approach of supporting the report on the basis of a rope supporting a hanging man?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in matters Northern Ireland. I think that he has attended virtually every debate on that subject. Therefore, he has heard me say on a number of occasions that we strongly support the Belfast agreement as the best way forward for the people of Northern Ireland. The agreement is based on a process that was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and by Lord Mayhew when we were in power, so it is natural that we should support it.
  The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say on a number of occasions when we have debated policing and the Patten report—I said it on the day in September last year when the report was published—that it was a useful basis for moving policing forward in Northern Ireland and that we believed that the great majority of the recommendations should be implemented straight away but others should be implemented only when there was no longer a terrorist threat: as I continually say, when Belfast is the same as Bracknell, which it is not at the moment, as is patently clear after the bomb at Hammersmith bridge last week and from the many events that are going on in Northern Ireland. I think that that is a full and comprehensive answer to the hon. Gentleman. As always, I am grateful to him for allowing me to clarify the position.
  Mr. Tom King: In the interest of historical accuracy—I have a certain personal interest in the matter—let me say that the peace process goes back even further than that: the previous Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher and the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement initiated the process from which this has derived; this is supposed to subsume the Anglo-Irish agreement, as I understand it. That led to a
  188
  certain development, but one matter was interesting and bears out what my right hon. Friend has said. I had personal reason on that occasion—others in the Province had good opportunity to see—to ensure that the RUC stood determinedly for the rule of law. He will remember the demonstrations at Maryfield for example, where the RUC was an essential green line against a determined attempt to destroy that agreement.
  Mr. MacKay: I fear that I have neglected my past duties as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that my predecessor on the Front Bench, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who is in his place, would not have made the same mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that a process has been evolving over a number of years. Much of the work was carried out by Conservative Administrations, as I am sure that the Secretary of State readily acknowledges. I see him doing so and I am grateful to him for yet again generously confirming that.
  We regard the overwhelming majority of the proposals in the Patten report as non-controversial. Many of them could and should be implemented quickly. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State accepted in January Patten's recommendations on issues such as information technology, the case for a new police college and the generous severance arrangements for police officers—regular and reservist—Who choose to leave the service early. We look forward to rapid progress in those areas.
  The bulk of the Patten proposals formed a useful basis for what policing in Northern Ireland could be like when the main terrorist threat is finally over, but there are other areas, such as the scrapping of the RUC's royal title, to which we are implacably opposed. The security-sensitive recommendations should be considered only when there is a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
  Most of Patten was foreshadowed in the fundamental review of policing that the Chief Constable initiated following the first IRA cessation in 1994. That review envisaged three scenarios: first, a continuing high level of terrorist activity; secondly, an end to bombings and killings, but the terrorist organisations remaining fully armed and engaged in shootings, beatings, mutilations and racketeering; thirdly, an end to terrorism, with the terrorist organisations dismantling and decommissioning their weapons. Only in that third scenario was it envisaged that there should be a fundamental change to policing and, importantly, significant reductions in the size of the RUC.
  Regrettably, we are still a long way from the third scenario. Despite the re-establishment of the Executive and the Assembly, coupled with the IRA's offer to put its weapons completely and verifiably beyond use and to engage in confidence-building measures, there has been no decommissioning and the main terrorist threat remains. In the event of a permanent end to violence by the main terrorist organisations, the threat from the dissidents, particularly on the republican side, will remain potent. We know that they are recruiting members, that they have access to more sophisticated weaponry and that it is only through the skill of the police and the Army that recent attacks have not resulted in more serious damage and loss of life.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not unsympathetic to

  189
  some of the points that he is making at the moment, but I am confused about the Conservative reasoned amendment. He says that the parentage of the process belongs to the Conservative party and argues that many of the provisions in the Bill are worthy of support. He has heard the Secretary of State say that there will be fine tuning in Committee. Is not the amendment premature, given the right hon. Gentleman's overall attitude?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman and I share a number of views on the subject. I have great respect for his keen interest in Northern Ireland and the great sincerity of everything that he says on these issues. The Conservatives feel strongly about each of the points made in the amendment, as I shall illustrate. We think that it is proper that it should come before the House on Second Reading. I acknowledge that, if we are defeated in the Division, we shall need to come back to the issues in Committee and on Report—and no doubt in another place as well. It is right that we should properly discuss the issues on Second Reading and have a vote at the end of today's debate.
  While any of the fringe groups that have not signed up to the agreement remain active and retain their capability, it would be absolute madness to introduce any of the controversial security-sensitive measures recommended by Patten. That is why we do not believe that the time is right to make cuts in the strength and capability of the police, or at this stage to begin phasing out the full-time reserve. Nor do we believe that it is right to tamper with Special Branch in a way that could undermine its intelligence efforts and effectiveness.
  Above all, no changes must be made for political reasons—they should be made only with the full support of the Chief Constable. Nothing must be done that in any way undermines the ability of the RUC to uphold the rule of law and to protect all the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the recent bomb on the Hammersmith bridge demonstrates teat those allegedly proxy groups now have the logistical capacity to deliver the same sort of blow and threat to the city of London as did their progenitors, the Provisional IRA?
  Mr. MacKay: Yes, and that was the thrust of what I was saying.
  We accept the appointment of the oversight commissioner last week, but he must not be allowed to interfere in, or cut across the responsibilities of, the Chief Constable of the RUC. The Secretary of State made that clear. He has just confirmed it again now, and we are grateful for that. It is the correct decision.
  The Chief Constable must be allowed to run the police service without interference from any politician or group of politicians, whoever they may be. That goes for the new policing board that will be set up by the Bill to replace the existing Police Authority. The new policing board will be made up of a majority of politicians from parties represented in the Executive.
  As we said in our submission to Patten, we do not in principle set ourselves against the greater representation of locally elected politicians on the Police Authority, although with safeguards. However, we have real anxieties about the scope for political interference by
  190
  the board that could result from the Patten recommendations—especially when we consider that the board will contain parties which, even now, cannot bring themselves to support the police.
  The problems will be more acute on the district policing partnerships, especially in areas where one political party or one tradition might be dominant. Rather than satisfying Patten's totally legitimate aim of taking the politics out of policing, this could have exactly the opposite effect—politicising the police to a greater extent than at any time since before 1970. As drafted, the Bill goes some way to addressing our concerns on this, and we are grateful for that. The safeguards that it contains are essential if the operational independence of the Chief Constable is to be preserved and the police are able to get on with the job of tackling crime, rather than turning it into a political football.
  However, the safeguards do not go far enough. We remain totally opposed to the inclusion on the policing board of members of political parties who remain inextricably linked with terrorist organisations that have not even begun to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. We find it completely unacceptable that the Bill will not explicitly provide for the disqualification of political or independent members from sitting on the board who have been convicted of scheduled or so called terrorist-type offences.
  Similarly, we are concerned about the district policing partnerships that are to be established by the Bill to mirror the reorganisation of the police into districts based on the existing local government boundaries. We would not have proposed the establishment of the DPPs and would have preferred it if Patten had been content to build on the police-community liaison committees.
  Despite our huge reservations, we recognise that the DPPs form a key part of the Patten report and therefore we will not oppose them. Again, the Bill goes some way to addressing our concerns about the DPPs. It rightly does not include the ludicrous plan to give councils powers to raise money to buy in additional policing services, paving the way for paramilitaries to come in through the back door. We welcome the fact that the DPPs will have only a consultative role, although we remain concerned that they will still interfere in the operational decisions of the district commander. However, we believe that it is wrong for any party, so-called loyalist or republican, to be represented on the DPPs if their paramilitary associates have not decommissioned a single gun or an ounce of Semtex. The provision to disqualify from sitting as an independent member any person who has been convicted of a scheduled offence should also apply explicitly to any political members with previous terrorist convictions.
  Dr. Godman: In Strathclyde, the police board is made up of local authority representatives, so I am keenly interested in the composition of the DPPs. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that Patten recommended that they meet in public, in order to enhance their accountability to the local community. Does he agree?
  Mr. MacKay: In principle, I am in favour of the DPPs meeting in public, but the hon. Gentleman, from his considerable experience of Northern Ireland, will agree that occasions may occur when they need to meet in private as well. I see that the Secretary of State is taking

  191
  a keen interest in this exchange and I am sure that the issue will be explored further in Committee. I am willing to be convinced on the point and we will no doubt hear further from the hon. Gentleman when he makes his own speech.
  The composition of the policing board and the DPPs would be sufficient on its own to warrant discomfort with the Bill. Combined with its failure to preserve the proud name of the RUC and its cap badge insignia, it means that the Opposition cannot support Second Reading, and that is why we have moved a reasoned amendment.
  Mr. Robathan: As I understand it, the proposed composition of the police board means that Martin McGuinness could be put on it. He has all but admitted to having been on the army board of the IRA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop?
  Mr. MacKay: I prefer to stick to our amendment, because in it we say that people who have been convicted of a scheduled offence should not be allowed to sit on the board or the DDPs. That is a straightforward and conclusive proposal, because such people are clearly guilty of an offence and have been convicted in a court. I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but it would dangerous to rely on circumstantial evidence, however strong.
  Mr. Mandelson: The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that it was not possible for the Opposition to vote in favour of Second Reading. Surely it is an option for the Opposition, in the event of their amendment being defeated, to support Second Reading, given how much of the Bill he says that they support, given that they supported the original objectives and terms of reference of the Patten commission and given that it is an integral part of the Good Friday agreement. Surely in view of the Opposition's support for all those things, it would be better from everyone's point of view if, having voted for their amendment, they then did not vote against Second Reading.
  Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the chance to clarify our position. If we lose our amendment tonight—clearly, he will bring his massed troops into the Lobby to defeat us—we will still be unhappy with important aspects of the Bill. In those circumstances, sensible observers would think it odd if we supported the Bill. What we will do, subject to listening carefully to the winding-up speech by the Minister of State, whom I am glad to see in his place, is to abstain on Second Reading and try to win the arguments in Committee, on Report and in the House of Lords. I hope that that makes the Opposition's position abundantly plain to the Secretary of State, but I repeat my perfectly legitimate proviso that we will listen to the Minister of State. He is a man who uses his words carefully, but I am sure that he will want to sum up at some length. We will be very alert during the final 15 or 20 minutes of the debate.
  I return to Patten's proposals to take away the proud name of the RUC, and its cap badge. They are the most controversial element of the report, have caused
  192
  significant hurt and anger, and are wholly without justification. We profoundly disagree with the assertion that the police service should be entirely free of any association with the symbols of the state, especially when acceptance of the Belfast agreement means acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional status.
  With regard to the cap badge, I can only repeat what I and others have said many times before—that is, that it would be difficult to come up with anything that better encompasses the British and Irish traditions than the cap badge. To change it seems crass and stupid.
  With regard to the name, the Patten report can offer no convincing evidence to support the scrapping of the royal title because no convincing evidence exists. As the most recent report from the police authority in Northern Ireland concluded, implementing the proposal will
  cause major offence in the Protestant community but will not lead to significant improvements in support for the Police among Catholics.
  That fear was echoed again recently by the Chief Constable. In other words, the proposal is all pain and very little gain. Why has it been put forward, when all the evidence suggests that the name is not the problem? An opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph in April showed that 61 per cent. of Catholics in Northern Ireland had no difficulty with the name of the RUC. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs looked at the matter two years ago and recommended that the name should be retained.
  The inescapable conclusion is that the decision to drop the royal title is designed to appeal to a minority of a minority, whose members have never supported the police. In all honesty, they are unlikely ever to support a police force other than one that they control.
  Mr. Stephen Day: My right hon. Friend has rightly described to the House how the terrorist threat remains. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State has decided to go ahead with proposals such as removing the name of the RUC and allowing former activists and supporters of terrorist organisations to control the police. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had listened to all parties in Northern Ireland. Does not his determination to press ahead with the proposals lay him open to the justifiable accusation that he has listened rather more closely to those parties that have held a gun to his head?
  Mr. MacKay: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Like many hon. Members in the Chamber today—but not all of them—he has long taken a keen interest in Northern Ireland matters, and I know that he visits the Province regularly.
  The Patten proposal to drop the RUC's royal title does not have widespread support in the community. It should be reconsidered and, even at this late stage, I urge the Secretary of State to do so. The Bill does not require him to take an immediate decision, but allows him to defer it for some time. It leaves the matter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands. The Opposition, at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, have advocated adopting a title that incorporates the RUC alongside a new title for the force. We have been supported in what seems to be the entirely correct compromise by many distinguished figures, including Monsignor Denis Faul.

  193
  Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State told the House that it should be possible to incorporate the name of the RUC in any new title. We shall obviously give him the opportunity to do just that. However, what he has said today, what the Bill says and what he has been saying in the media recently about the title not including the RUC, but having some legal definition that it is, does not go far enough unless there is much more clarity. I do not think that anyone is convinced of that yet; we do not see it, as he clearly does, as a satisfactory compromise.
  We will seek to amend the Bill in Committee so that the proud name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary can stand alongside the working title of Police Service of Northern Ireland. We look forward to the Government joining us in the Lobby in support of that.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said that, during the passage of the Bill, he would listen carefully to the arguments deployed? Does my right hon. Friend remember the Secretary of State saying earlier that he did not envisage making the name change until the middle of next year? Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be helpful if, in his winding-up speech, the Minister of State indicated the sort of circumstances that might occur over the next 12 months before the proposed name change that might have some influence on the Secretary of State's thinking?
  Mr. MacKay: My understanding is that it is a date in September. The Secretary of State is nodding, so we have an even longer time of 15 months. I see the Minister of State smiling. Whether that is a positive sign, I do not know. [Interruption.] His fellow Ministers say that he has a sunny disposition. Well, some of the time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) has vast practical experience of Northern Ireland affairs in a variety of capacities, not just ministerial. His comments are worth serious consideration by the Minister of State who will, I hope, address them and the related points that I have made when he is winding up the debate.
  Mr. Thompson: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that such a compromise, in which the names of the RUC and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are incorporated as one, is not what the people of Northern Ireland believe that the Tory party was proposing? Surely when the Tory party talks about maintaining the proud name of the RUC, it should mean exactly that, and not this unhappy compromise.
  Mr. MacKay: I am disappointed at the hon. Gentleman. He normally attends our debates and will have heard me say on a number of occasions that I think that it a reasonable compromise to incorporate both names. I would be the first to admit that the name of the police force can, at times, be a sensitive issue to both communities. That is why, to acknowledge that sensitivity in both communities, we have suggested the joint name. It is cumbersome, it is boring and it is almost pedantic, but I think that it is the best way in which to bring people together on the issue.
  The hon. Gentleman has badly misinterpreted what I said. Again and again, on radio and television in the Province, here on the mainland and from this Dispatch
  194
  Box, I have made it clear that we have never said that the name must stand alone and not be changed. We have always said that we want it included in the new title, while not exclusively being the new title. I regret that, unusually on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard, is mistaken.
  We all agree that there must be change in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC, under Sir Ronnie Flanagan's fine leadership, recognises this. It is wrong that the force is so overwhelmingly Protestant. I agree with the Secretary of State about that, and I agree with Patten wholeheartedly. The RUC has for many years sought to recruit more Catholics. However, let us be clear: the biggest single disincentive to Catholic recruitment, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in his intervention, remains intimidation and the threat of murder. Anybody who doubts that should recall how the number of Catholic applicants to the RUC doubled after the first IRA ceasefire in 1994, only to fall back again when the ceasefire broke down. Nor has the situation been helped by the refusal—
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I will in a moment. What I am about to say will encourage the hon. Gentleman to make an even longer intervention, so I shall finish my remarks before giving way.
  The situation has not been helped by the refusal of nationalist politicians and members of the Catholic clergy to recommend to young Catholic men and women that they should join the police force. I very much hope that that will change. There can be no justification whatever for that refusal. I willingly give way to the Deputy First Minister.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I put it to him, as gently as I can, that, as a Catholic who has lived all his life in the north of Ireland and who knows exactly what people feel about that issue, it seems to me somewhat patronising at times to be told why we as a people and we as a community do not do this or that. There is much more to the reasons why members of the Catholic community have not joined the police service than the point that has been made today.
  Furthermore, unless we start to face realities, we shall not solve the problem. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the Catholic Church. The Church is important not because it is a church, but because we are talking about Catholics and, last week, it issued a statement, through Father Tim Bartlett. I shall make reference to that statement, if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. MacKay: Obviously, I hope that the Deputy First Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as there was an omission from his remarks. I was hoping that he would say that he and his colleagues would strongly encourage the best young men and women from his community to join the RUC in large numbers, so that we can achieve what he and I want—a more balanced police force that broadly represents the two communities in Northern Ireland. It is a pity that he did not do that,

  195
  although it was probably an oversight because he wanted to make other points. When he makes his speech, I am sure that he will put that right.
  Mr. Mallon: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that I omitted something, I should like to put that right. The matter is as simple as this—I shall repeat the point later because it bears repeating: get this Bill right and we shall do that; get it wrong, and the objectives of Patten cannot be achieved.
  Mr. MacKay: I did not quite understand the pause after "get it wrong" and then the heavy hint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's comments will not be misinterpreted outside this place, because they were not what I would have expected from someone for whom I have great respect. In everybody's interest, he will need to clarify that matter when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I hope that we all share the objective that the composition of the police force should more accurately reflect the make-up of the community in Northern Ireland. We all want the RUC routinely to go unarmed, with no need for flak jackets and armoured vehicles, and to patrol all parts of Northern Ireland without the need for support from the Army.
  The biggest contribution to that—it would transform the policing environment in Northern Ireland—would be for the paramilitaries, republican and so-called loyalist, to end terrorism for good; to dismantle their organisations and to begin decommissioning their illegally held weapons, as they promised to do under the Belfast agreement. When that happens, it should fall to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with its proud name and symbols preserved, to rise to the challenge of policing the peace as valiantly as it has policed Northern Ireland throughout the darkest days of terror. The RUC deserves our support; without our amendment, the Bill does not.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I again thank the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) for allowing me to intervene earlier.
  I have put my party's view on the issue for many years—almost 30 years—and I will not bore hon. Members with what they have heard before. I want to make two points and to emphasise that this is not a stand-alone issue; it is interlocked with the political and constitutional dimension that is Northern Ireland, and it takes two parts of the interlocking to deal with the problem. The first is the alienation of a section of the people from a constitutional arrangement about which they were not consulted and of which they are not particularly enamoured. That may not sound good, but it is the reality—however, we can deal with that reality through the terms of the Good Friday agreement. Secondly, policing belongs to the people; it does not belong to a Government, a state or a Secretary of State. As such, it must belong to all the people if we are to have successful policing.
  I make those two brief points because we have the institutions in Northern Ireland—between north and south, between east and west and between Britain and
  196
  Ireland—but we do not yet have a police service that can belong to all the people. That is what I and my party want to achieve, and we have striven to achieve that not in the comfort of debate or theory, but in places such as Derry, the Bogside, south Armagh, south Down and west Belfast. That was not easy, and it will not be easy in the future. Let us put all the theories aside—my colleagues and I do not have time for such luxuries—because if we get the Bill right, I will go into the hardest parts of Northern Ireland and I will ask people to join the police service and to support it. That is what I and my colleagues will do. However, we must get the Bill right.
  The name "Patten" has been cited repeatedly in the debate, and rightly so. However, it is perhaps time that I reminded the House of who he is. He is no rabid nationalist or someone from south Armagh, like myself, and he is not an erstwhile supporter of any paramilitary group. He was a former chairman of the Conservative party, he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland office where he represented the Conservative party, he was an Education Minister in a previous Government, he was the former Governor of Hong Kong and he is currently a Commissioner in the European Union. Let us not doubt his credentials, and I say that as someone who is not a Conservative. Let us not doubt his ability, and I say that as someone who has admired him for a long time. Let us not disown him, but have seen traces of that from members of the Conservative party. He still belongs to the same party as the right hon. Member for Bracknell.
  How do we deal with Patten? I have considered the ways in which people have tried to deal with him. One can abuse him verbally, and that has happened—although, thankfully, he is not the type of man who lies down in the face of such abuse. One can scorn his report, and I have witnessed that. One can question his motives and those of the other commissioners, and I have seen that. However, I did not see the clever way of dealing with Patten until the Bill was produced. One takes the report, espouses it and then emasculates, diminishes and reduces it from what it was intended to do. That is the clever way to deal with Patten.
  I remind the House of what Patten said and what he was charged to do. He was charged to create
  a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.
  The report was published last September. It did not contain everything that we as a party wanted, but we recognised it as a blueprint for a system of policing with which everybody could identify—policing for which all could assume responsibility and a police service working with and for all the community.
  We went further than that—much further. We indicated that we would put people on the policing board and encourage people to join the police, on the basis of the implementation—full and faithful—of the Patten report. We also indicated that we would ask young people to stand against the forces in their own community to do the same. We indicated that we would do that not in a theoretical way, but up front, on the streets, where it counted. Having expressed a willingness to accept our responsibilities, I must express disappointment that others did not accept their responsibilities in the same way.
  Our concerns relate to points right through the Bill. It leaves the Secretary of State to decide whether to implement key Patten recommendations on symbolic

  197
  matters. I shall not get into the hang-ups about symbols; I have much too much respect for Unionism and the problems of Unionism to do that. However, I remind everybody of what Patten said. He stated that the Royal Ulster Constabulary
  should henceforth be named the Northern Ireland Police Service.
  He continued:
  The Northern Ireland Police Service should adopt a new badge and symbols which are entirely free from any association with either the British or Irish states.
  That was recommended not by us, but by Patten—a former Conservative Minister. He recommended also that
  the Union flag should no longer be flown from police buildings.
  Those are Patten's words, not mine.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: He is not God.
  Mr. Mallon: Patten is not God, but he is the first person in the history of the Northern Ireland state to lay down the basis on which we may—I repeat may—solve policing.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I follow his argument, but I am sure he will agree that in a democratic society a police force must uphold the rule of law, which comes from the state and its identity. Divorcing one from the other can be very difficult. There are communities where people's understanding of the rule of law is skewed in such a way that the hon. Gentleman would have to acknowledge that it was not the rule of law at all. Why is he so confident that people would be willing to accept the changes that he supports and to participate in community policing along the lines that he advocates? I find it difficult to believe that that will come about.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Let us hear Patten's views on that question. I shall quote him directly. He said that
  if you are going to get a police service which young Catholics as well as young Protestants … are going to join, then it can't be identified with the central political argument in Northern Ireland and it is as simple as that.
  That is Patten's view, and it is shared by our party. It is a view that has been expressed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the past week.
  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland appointed by the Government has expressed the view that, in effect, some aspects of the Bill are ludicrous and quite unacceptable. Dr. Lynch, a member of the Patten commission, believes that Patten has been got at. That view is therefore not a communal prejudice that exists only in parts of Northern Ireland. We are not considering an argument between nationalism and Unionism, but the governance of the north of Ireland grappling with factors that have to be tackled to solve the problem.
  I realise that I am running out of time. I shall make one last point. There comes a time to say exactly what is needed to solve a problem. We will not solve the problem by trying slickly to get into the middle, no matter where it might be. We shall not solve the problem by trying to diminish—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He will remember that I used to say that the ancestor of our mutual friend Richard Needham had been the hon. Member for Newry while my ancestor had been the hon. Member for Armagh and that we were both spiritual ancestors of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that we greatly appreciate and are proud of his contribution to Northern Ireland history.
  I apologise to the Secretary of State for arriving late. The Standing Committee on which I serve had not reached a conclusion at 1 pm after three and a half hours of debate, although we divided shortly after resuming at 4.30 pm.
  I declare an interest as Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which published a report on the composition, recruitment and training of the RUC—now the RUC George Cross Foundation—in 1998, before the Patten commission began its inquiry. The Select Committee has 13 members: seven from the Labour party, four from the Province—three Unionists and one Social Democratic and Labour party member—and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and me from the Conservative party. So far, we have published 10 reports in this Parliament, nine of which have been unanimous. The exception was the report on the RUC, on which we divided twice: on membership of outside orders and on flying flags.
  It is notable that we did not divide on uniform, cap badge or name. On those matters, we did not resile from the status quo. The members of the Committee who are not Labour Members have remained unchanged in this Parliament. There have been six changes among the seven Labour Members. Opinion has shifted a little in the Committee since the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) left us to concentrate on the mayoralty of London. However, he was a member of the Committee when we agreed the RUC report in 1998. It is reasonable to assume that the initial seven Labour Members, some of whom are present tonight, were among those in the Labour party who were most interested in Northern Ireland. I remark neutrally that the Select Committee, with the membership that I described, reached a different but unanimous conclusion, on uniform, cap badge and title from that of the Patten commission.
  Policing in Ireland goes back a long way. The younger Pitt's first efforts to set up a metropolitan force after the Gordon riots foundered on my constituents in the City of London; they refused to have anything to do with it. He withdrew the Bill in 1785 with the disclaimer that it was a subject of which he was not the master. However, in 1786, the then Irish Parliament established a force in Dublin along Pitt's lines. Robert Peel, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland between 1812 and 1818, observed its workings and returned to London as Home Secretary in the 1820s, armed with that knowledge. The rest is history.
  Those of us who support the Belfast agreement must adjust in future months to a minuet of claim and counter-claim, concession and counter-concession between the parties that make up the Executive. We must pray that it is not always a zero-sum game, especially as the experience of working together grows, as it does in a

  199
  Select Committee. In the meantime, it is ironic that the viceregality of the Secretary of State's role will grow rather than diminish, not least through the Bill's provisions. How well that marches with the Home Secretary simultaneously surrendering his unique powers in relation to the Metropolitan police to a new Police Authority in London will be a matter for historians. However, I hope that rumours that the Secretary of State is marked out for a more central role on the Whitehall stage or that he can, post devolution, run Northern Ireland in his spare time from running the Labour party's re-election campaign, are untrue. Such a hybrid portfolio would be an insult to the Province, and not least to the RUC. However, I intend it as a compliment to the Secretary of State that I hope he remains in the Province.
  I asked the Secretary of State twice, publicly and on the record, about the morale of the RUC. I asked once after his statement on the Patten report on 19 January and once three months later, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak and I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I characterise his answers, which were effectively the same, as, "could be better, but pretty good, all things considered." He explained to me how he took every opportunity to test RUC opinion. I did the same after November 1989, when, in answer to a direct question, I opined to the Press Association that I did not rule out future conversations with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). Although I was deeply impressed, as the Secretary of State has been, by the responsibility and correctness of RUC reactions—in my case, to me and what I said—I would not have been so brave as to calibrate RUC morale at that time.
  A Secretary of State cannot go incognito among the RUC as Henry V went among his men clad in the cloak of Sir Thomas Erpingham on the eve of Agincourt. The Secretary of State carries his own legend of the prince of darkness, but the RUC cannot be treated as a common or garden focus group. My more informal soundings of RUC opinion do not confirm the Secretary of State's more sanguine findings about morale.
  One of the bravest hon. Members who ever sat in the House told me shortly after I entered Parliament about a conversation that he had held with a Labour Member in the 1974–79 Parliament. That Member told him that trade unions mattered to Labour as much as old schools and regiments mattered to the Tories. The importance of morale in outside bodies is therefore familiar to hon. Members from both parties.
  The RUC's historic role was derived in no small part from its knowledge of the way in which it was upholding the state in times of crisis. I used to say during the more troubled times of the troubles that the RUC, assisted by the Army, made life in Northern Ireland fifteen sixteenths normal. I therefore echo the words of Lord Fitt that were quoted earlier.
  The Secretary of State's immediate predecessor said on the publication of the Patten report:
  It has been the RUC who have held the fabric of this society together over the past 30 years.
  200
  However, some lines by Housman are also relevant:
  To skies that knit their heartstrings right,
  To fields that bred them brave,
  The saviours come not home tonight,
  Themselves they could not save.
  In our day and age, it is sad for the average RUC family of a certain age to look at their wedding photographs and see the missing faces. How much worse it is for the families of those who died. It is said that every family in Northern Ireland knows someone who has died.
  When I was Secretary of State, like my predecessors and doubtless my successors, I wrote a longish letter in my own hand to the next of kin of every RUC member who was killed in the troubles. A decade later, it has been deeply moving to hear privately from members of the RUC whom I meet in the Province how much those letter continue to matter to the bereaved and in the families. If a life of whatever tradition is given in the service of the state, it remains important that that life and its loss should continue to be remembered, acknowledged, understood and valued. Any diminution of the force to which those people belonged increases the sense of loss and thus the force's morale.
  I realise that the Patten commission was an international body and was considered the stronger for that. However, the regimental tradition is less strong in some other countries than it is here, just as the reputation of the British Army exceeds that of some other forces, and the RUC are regarded in Kosovo as model international policemen. The regimental tradition in all its forms is crucial to morale in our culture. However, I acknowledge that it is a living thing and not simply of the past.
  I declare another interest. I am still haunted by a solecism that I once committed on the media of the Republic of Ireland. I know how it happened, but it is no comfort when compared with the hurt that I inflicted on a multitude of people, and especially a particular handful. The Secretary of State also committed a solecism on the media of the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps for understandable reasons, he had my especial sympathy. My solecism was much worse than his, but because his was related to the Brigade of Guards, it has an unfortunate read-across to the current issue.
  I do not know how the Secretary of State, who has some of the technical characteristics of Houdini, will extricate himself from the crux into which the Patten commission's recommendations and his reactions to them have placed him. I detect from his recent actions that he has an instinct about the potential cost of the current course to him and to Northern Ireland. To avoid any charge of political advantage, I shall make an even-handed observation about Governments of both parties. The previous Conservative Government set universities a tough challenge in downsizing their faculty numbers, with genuine consequences for future quality. The previous Labour Government created a genuine problem for policing in the 1980s by letting so many experienced police sergeants of around the age of 35 retire dispirited in the mid-1970s—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is a delight to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I remember well the solecism that he made and the cry that he should resign. I also remember saying at the Dispatch Box that I saw no reason why he should resign. He was the most subtle, most far-reaching and cleverest Tory Secretary of State we ever had. That is a rare tribute for me to make to a Conservative politician, but it is one that he deserves.
  The last phrase of the Tory amendment states that the Bill
  threatens significantly to increase the politicisation of policing in Northern Ireland.
  That is precisely what the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is doing under the amendment. He is increasing politicisation given that the Patten report is aimed at and based on taking the police out of politics in Northern Ireland.
  I am second to none in my praise of the integrity and courage of those members of the RUC—men and women—who have fought strongly to uphold the rule of law impartially. There are many such brave men and women, but I could not say that there has been no problem in the RUC. That problem still remains; if it did not, we would not be debating the Bill or discussing Patten tonight.
  The first incident in the current problems occurred when nine policemen savagely beat Samuel Devenney in Derry in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). A senior British police officer was appointed to inquire into that incident, but he could find out nothing because of a conspiracy of silence by the policemen who were in the area at the time. The police were standing by while Robert Hamil was cruelly murdered and while the streets of Belfast burned. The police were involved in shoot-to-kill policies. I am not raking over old history to score political points; I am saying that that is part of the problem. The sooner that hon. Members, especially those on the Unionist Benches, realise that we are considering a police force that, rightly or wrongly, has been associated by people in the minority population with being part and parcel of a state that has been hostile to them, the better; it has been used to persecute them as it regarded the minority as the enemy within the state in the past. Until people are prepared to recognise that that is part and parcel of what Patten has tried to address, we are in considerable difficulty.
  Mr. Michael Howard: What part does the hon. Gentleman think is played in what he describes as the problem by the worth of the president of Sinn Fein, who in January of this year described someone who was convicted of murdering an RUC officer as a "republican role model" and "morally superior" to those who sought to criminalise him? What part does he think language of that kind plays in the problem?
  Mr. McNamara: I find that language despicable. I hold no brief whatever for the killing of police officers. I pay tribute to those men who courageously held the line, for example, at the time of the Hillsborough agreement, in which a Government of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member were involved. Many police officers have behaved with enormous courage in grave
  202
  difficulties. He should not ask me to defend the words of the president of Sinn Fein—that is a matter for him—nor should he suggest that I can explain away those terrible things in some way.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and I have always fought to have a police force that would be acceptable to the community as a whole in Northern Ireland, and which could earn the respect of both sides of the community. That is what Patten is trying to do. Patten produced a report that met his terms of reference, but the problem is that the Bill does not do so. The Bill is a cadaver of Patten; it does not contain the spirit and the letter of Patten as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested. Much of what he said did, but the Bill does not.
  The briefing that the Northern Ireland Office supplied for Second Reading bears very little relation in many substantial parts to what my right hon. Friend said today. I regard the Bill as mean, and its meanness can be seen in the discussion of the objections to the Bill contained in the briefing. He has stood many of those things on their head, so he presumably had nothing to do with the briefing, but, for example, paragraph 10, on traditions and beliefs, states:
  Patten recommends that the new oath should require officers "to accord equal respect to all individuals and to their traditions and beliefs". The Bill omits "traditions and beliefs" on the basis that it would be wrong to accord some of them "equal respect".
  What clever little man, with his grubby little jammy fingers, thought of that?
  The paragraph continues:
  For example, the "tradition" of violence and the "belief' that it is legitimate to use violence for political ends.
  That must be aimed at the shoot-to-kill policy, at Gibraltar and at Derry. Is that what was meant? What nasty minds suggested that the SDLP's traditions and beliefs were ones of violence—the people most keen to ensure that the Bill should be considered in that way? Therefore, we are asked to say what have we found wrong with the Bill and why it is a cadaver.
  The ombudsman's powers have been taken away and limited. To that extent, my right hon. Friend has gone some way to meet the concerns, but there are others about the proposed powers of the new policing board. The Police Authority said:
  the Secretary of State's intention threatens to undermine the credibility of the new body before it even gets off the ground.
  We are extremely concerned that if the legislation goes through as it stands, the Policing Board could actually have less power than the current Police Authority—a ludicrous situation …
  It is strange that the code of ethics for the police has already been drawn up by Sir Jack Hermon, who was Chief Constable. It was obviously lacking, otherwise we would not need a new one, but the person who has Hermon's job will be responsible for it.
  According to the draft implementation scheme that happened to fall into my hands, 133 of the 175 recommendations will be implemented by the police, and the Chief Constable will have sole responsibility for 29. On recruitment, the Bill will never achieve the critical mass that Patten wants; on the implementation oversight, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to alter it. An implementation officer with no powers—unable to enforce, to goad, to demand or to make regular

  203
  checks—is no use. The Bill has been drawn up by the security services and the Northern Ireland Office, which thought, "How can we best emasculate, neuter or castrate the Patten report?" That attempt has failed.
  If the Bill is passed in its present form, it will not carry with it the confidence of the nationalist community. That is what we must look for. There has been a lack of confidence throughout, which is why policing has been one of the major problems facing Northern Ireland and the achievement of a settlement. The association of the police with the organs of the state—the one as the political extension of the other—has to stop. Patten gives us that opportunity, and I hope that we seize it.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Back in the old days, when I was young and lived in Northern Ireland, I talked to the police almost every day. My dad had a Volvo and no Royal Ulster Constabulary officer would believe that he had lent it to me. That concern turned out to be well founded, as I wrote the vehicle off on 1 January 1984. I apologise to the police for wasting their time and to my father for wasting his car.
  The Secretary of State referred to "as good a model for policing as can be found anywhere in the world." He also said that he would approach the debate with an open mind. Also, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, the principle that we are debating represents the best opportunity for taking Northern Ireland policing forward, and I welcome the prospect of profoundly improving the trust with which communities in the Northern Irish population regard the police service—although I shall outline areas that are in serious need of improvement, which we may refer to in amendments.
  Patten focused on the vision for policing for Northern Ireland, as outlined in the Good Friday agreement, which said that the police service should be
  accountable, both under the law for its actions and to the community it serves; representative of the society it polices, and operates within a coherent and co-operative criminal justice system, which conforms with human rights norms…
  That is also the Liberal Democrat vision for the police in Northern Ireland: a single, integrated police service with the confidence and respect of the whole community.
  We all know the benefits of that, but one that has not been mentioned is the prospect of an end to most of the paramilitary beatings, a relatively large number of which still occur. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one must be the fact that self-appointed law keepers—vigilantes—think that their role is to step in when the RUC is seen to be ineffective. Clearly, there are no grounds to justify paramilitary beatings, but the fact that they happen is symptomatic of a deep-seated public order problem at a number of different levels. If we get the Bill right, perhaps we can address them successfully.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting to the heart of the matter. He has spelled out a vision and said that Liberal Democrats share it—I can assure him that Conservatives share it as well—but he has also pointed out that certain elements in the community want to distort it for their own advantage. Some changes may
  204
  simply be used as instruments with which to beat the police over the head in one meeting of the policing board after another, and some ratcheted political advantage may be sought, rather than being used to create consensus community policing, which is the reason for the new force's creation. Is not that a problem with the Bill, and a reason why it causes so much difficulty?
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the issue is politically charged. Enormous symbolism is attached to it. Although that does not make the debate a bad thing, it makes it more difficult for us to steer an acceptable course from here to the end of proceedings on the Bill. With respect to him, I fear that on occasion, his party may be in danger of using the Bill as a political opportunity, which is not healthy. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is not present to hear this point, but I ask him and his colleagues to assure us that they will not persist in trying to score party political points on the United Kingdom mainland when we need a more rational and more measured approach.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has made an important point about community policing, and a good aspect of the Bill is the recognition that we must move to a more usual form of policing if the police service is to win the trust of the local community. That has not been achieved, for obvious reasons, in parts of Northern Ireland, but only when it occurs will the police service be seen by all as the legitimate law-keeping force. Therefore, clause 15 is welcome. It provides a general function for the new district policing partnerships, with plans for obtaining the views of the public as a whole on matters of local concern. The partnerships will seek the public's co-operation in preventing crime and act as general forums for discussion and consultation on matters affecting local policing.
  We are also encouraged by clause 21, which will allow the policing board to
  make arrangements to facilitate consultation
  if a district policing partnership has not done so. It also stresses the crucial importance that Patten—and, in fairness I must add, the Government—have placed on that issue. We welcome the duty to publish a variety of reports and codes, which are referred to in the Bill. They will go some way to ensuring that the police are seen as open and transparent. Bits of paper alone will not achieve that, and the attitude of the reformed police service will be the crucial driver.
  The annual report on the policing of Northern Ireland must include a section on police compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Liberal Democrat response to Patten praised the emphasis on human rights, which are essential to the well-being of a democratic society. The police must be seen to follow up and uphold the highest standards of international human rights. The Government seem to have accepted Patten's recommendation to include in the police service oath taken by new recruits a commitment to uphold human rights. That represents progress. I do not want to discuss just how the oath should be applied retrospectively, but I note that there are very strong, reasonably expressed views on both sides. That subject is best left until we can discuss it and related specific amendments in Committee.
  Some issues were missing from Patten, but the establishment of the RUC George Cross Foundation goes a long way to correcting the omission of any recognition

  205
  of the dedication and sacrifices of police officers and their families throughout the years of the troubles. We have emphasised that it is vital for officers who have served in the RUC to be treated with dignity, respect and generosity. Therefore, we also welcome the special provisions for severance and retirement packages in clause 45, although the detail will be important in establishing the extent to which those measures fulfil our hope that the respectful wishes of most Members of the House are carried out.
  Several provisions, some of which have been alluded to, still cause much concern. For the Liberal Democrats, clause 43, which deals with quotas, is the most significant problem. We fully support the need to make the police more representative, especially in relation to Catholics, but the imbalance in the proportion of Catholics applying for work in the police will not be fixed by demanding that an equal number be recruited from the qualified pool of candidates. Quotas are essentially a public policy tool for tackling discrimination at the point of selection. That is not the issue in Northern Ireland. The problem arises at the point of application.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made the point clearly: there is under-representation because an insufficient number of Catholics apply for jobs in the police. However, the solution lies not with a quota, but with the community attitude to the police. That cannot be handled by using quotas at the stage envisaged by the Government. Quotas miss the fundamental point that there are few Catholic applicants. That is not because Catholics have not been accepted by the RUC, but because, given the reasons that we have heard about, they have not had enough confidence in the idea of being in the police force to make applications. I have already discussed at length the importance of ensuring that the police are seen to be fair and impartial. They have not been viewed as such in the past, and some members of the community have not had enough trust in the police to consider a career with them.
  The 18 to 30 population in Northern Ireland, which is the likely source of new recruits, already has a rough balance between Protestants and Catholics: 45 per cent. are Catholics, 44 per cent. are Protestants and 11 per cent. are from other groups. If reform works, the natural rate of recruitment should therefore be balanced. If we get the applications right at the start, I believe that recruitment will work out in the end and quotas will become unnecessary, serving little more than a cosmetic purpose and giving a psychological guarantee of fair treatment. However, if, for whatever reason, the Catholic population does not apply to the police service, the use of quotas will not overcome the problem. They provide a tactical solution to a strategic issue.
  It would therefore be far more beneficial to initiate a strong programme of affirmative action to encourage more Catholics to apply to the police. Leaders of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland, such as politicians, church leaders and teachers should actively promote that and encourage young people to consider policing as a career option. That can be done only if community leaders go into those communities, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, and can point to a police service that they trust and which they can be seen to promote in a credible way.
  206
  Other under-represented groups such as women and ethnic minorities should be actively targeted and encouraged to join the police. New recruits from the pool of qualified candidates should then be monitored to ensure equity in recruitment opportunities. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view on that approach to an up-front percentage increase in applicants, which contrasts with going to the tail end of the recruitment process and seeking to address the problem long after it has been created.
  We must also watch out for quotas because, inadvertently, they may be more divisive for the police service, sectarianising what would otherwise be an integrated force. New officers benefiting from positive discrimination on, for example, religious grounds, could be put in a rather difficult position, as there is some evidence that positive discrimination can cause resentment in organisations.
  I shall underline an issue that has already been raised, and question the legality of such a move. The Bill proposes to amend current fair employment legislation to make room for quotas, which sets a dangerous precedent. Quotas are banned under that legislation because they are not regarded as a fair solution to an imbalance. I therefore seek guidance from Ministers on whether quotas are permissible under European law.
  Patten himself admits that the use of quotas for gender would be illegal. Even if quotas based on religion are currently legal, it is likely that they will become illegal in a year or so as a result of two directives under the Amsterdam treaty. There are proposals for a council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and for a council directive implementing the principle of equal treatment of people, regardless of racial or ethnic origin. Once again, therefore, I ask the Government to review their decision to include quotas in the Bill, and to examine those directives. We shall table amendments on those points later: this is a principle on which Liberal Democrat Members will push very hard indeed.
  The code of ethics is the primary legislative tool for achieving a human rights agenda in the police. However, the drafting of the code is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, without bodies such as the Human Rights Commission being granted explicit rights to be consulted. That should be rectified. Clause 30(4) requires members of the police only to "have regard" to the code of ethics. That should be amended to require them to comply with it. The phrase "have regard" is hardly a vote of confidence in the whole process, and the Bill should be more assertive.
  Earlier, I welcomed aspects of the Bill which will help to improve the accountability, openness and transparency of the police.
  Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were under instructions that Back Bench speeches could take only so much time. If the hon. Gentleman qualifies as a Front Bencher, does that not also apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), whose speech was stopped?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The understanding in the House has always been that, under Standing Orders,

  207
  the exemption from time limits extends only to the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party and to no one else.
  Mr. Öpik: For once, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel special. Thank you.
  Mr. MacKay: Make the most of it.
  Mr. Öpik: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support.
  The Patten report expressed hope that the new policing board would be considerably stronger than the Police Authority which it replaced. However, the Bill assigns many powers to the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable, rather than the Board. We agree that the Secretary of State needs to have a role in policing, and would like a Justice Minister in the Assembly to carry out those functions. We have a strategic concern about the proposed future structure and are anxious that the relationship between the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the board is out of balance and favours the Secretary of State.
  Recommendation 26 of the Patten report specified that the policing board should have the power to initiate
  an inquiry into any aspect of the police service or police conduct. Depending on the circumstances, the Board should have the option to request the Police Ombudsman, the Inspectorate of Constabulary or the Audit Office to conduct or contribute to such an inquiry, or to use the Board's own staff, or even private consultants for such a purpose.
  I echo other Members' concerns about the board's opportunities and power to have an inquiry. I shall not deal with the seven hurdles that prevent the board from exercising that power now, but I intend to raise them in Committee.
  None the less, I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that he is reviewing the opportunities for the board to call an inquiry. I shall not dwell on the matter here, but it requires clarification, as those who think that the board is insufficiently powerful are nervous about its influence in such areas.
  The police authority was responsible for setting objectives and targets in a police plan. Under the Bill, the new board will be responsible only for setting targets for objectives established elsewhere. The Secretary of State has the power to make regulations on the content of the annual policing plan—which, again, makes the holder of that office very powerful in relation to the board, not least because under the Bill, the Chief Constable need only "have regard" to the policing plan. We believe that it would be better if he were required to adhere to it, except when the board gives its approval for him not to do so.
  Similarly, under the Bill, responsibility for accounts and audit has been transferred from the police authority to the Chief Constable, not to the board. Given the lack of statutory reference to a chief executive or a secretary to the board, one can only conclude that the Chief Constable is to perform both those roles, so there will be a huge centralisation of power in that position. A privately run business would have no problem with that, but we are discussing a publicly accountable organisation. That is our primary reason for being concerned that the power is
  208
  over-centralised in two individuals, rather than being devolved to the board. I look forward to the Minister's reply on that subject.
  There have been many discussions about names, and, as everyone knows, I support the title "The Northern Ireland Police Department". However, I am a realist and, although you have given me leave to make a Front-Bench speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that I could muster the necessary votes for my proposal. Nevertheless, it seems for Her Majesty's Opposition to push for a reasoned amendment on a tactical issue that is primarily of symbolic importance. Were they to succeed in mustering enough votes for that, it would mean an end to the Bill. We would not move forward at all on the Patten proposals, whether such a step were faulty or not.
  Will the right hon. Member for Bracknell reconsider? Are his concerns so great that he cannot wait for the Bill's Committee stage? That, I believe, is the appropriate point at which to raise an issue on which, no doubt, we shall spend a lot of time Does he really need to register a vote against the whole Bill when he himself has said, and others have reiterated, that there is much in it that the Opposition support?
  Similarly, the Opposition's concern about involving ex-prisoners who were imprisoned as a result of the conflict is valid, but the issue has a far deeper significance than the simple concern about having ex-cons involved in the process. We must bear it in mind that about 15,000 people in the nationalist community have, at some time, been prisoners, and would therefore be excluded from the process if ex-prisoners were not allowed to participate.
  Mr. Mallon: We must be very careful about this point. The Bill refers to scheduled offences. More than 90 per cent. of people convicted of a scheduled offence over the years were guilty of parking their car in the wrong place—that was a scheduled offence. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a person of good will who happened to park his or her car in the wrong place should not, under the Bill, be allowed to serve in a police partnership.
  Mr. Öpik: I can relate to the hon. Gentleman's point, because I got a parking ticket last week.
  Mr. Mallon: That was not a scheduled offence.
  Mr. Öpik: That is true. Of course I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I agree with him: I am saying that I am concerned about the fact that people convicted of scheduled offences will be excluded from being independent members of a DPP. Those seeking to be political members will be allowed to proceed even if they have fallen foul of the scheduled offences rule, but independent candidates will not.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: One of the people whom we hope will be excluded was in the Lobby of the House today. I refer to Mr. Gerry Kelly, who planted the bomb at the Old Bailey, killed three people—one was an anaesthetist—and shot a guard in making his escape. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that such a person should be excluded.
  Mr. Öpik: I am saying that this is a more sophisticated debate than can be covered in a reasoned amendment.

  209
  We have already seen that there are two, or perhaps more, strongly held views on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is yours?"] I ask hon. Members to listen; they will then hear my view. Many of the people whom we are discussing have played an integral role in moving us from the bad old days to the relatively peaceful present. I happened to speak to Gerry Kelly today, and I believe that there must be a proper debate rather than the emotive reaction of automatically excluding such people from the political process.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Öpik: Yes, but then I will take no further interventions.
  Mr. Robinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refine his opinion when I tell him that the BBC in Northern Ireland is running as its lead story this evening the involvement of the Provisional IRA in the killing of Edmund McCoy 10 days ago in Dunm rry.
  Mr. Öpik: I shall go further: I am happy to refine and clarify my view on the basis of a sensible debate in Committee to decide who should be involved in the process and who should not. If we need evidence that there is this very debate to be had, we can consider what has happened in the Chamber in the past few minutes. Sometimes it is hard for people to entertain the possibility that on this matter there is a view different from their own, because, for understandable reasons, it provokes strong feelings.
  I do not necessarily ask hon. Members to accept my view, and I stress again that I am willing to refine my view on the basis of argument, because, as the Secretary of State said, we must keep an open mind on these important issues. I simply ask hon. Members to recognise that there must be a debate, and we will not have that debate if we simply try to shout each other down or find reasons not to listen to alternative views before rejecting them.
  As for the Patten proposals, as the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) have said, we have to be consistent on them. At times the Government have said that they cannot do x or y because it is not a Patten recommendation. If that is the case, they must be true to his recommendations throughout. However, for understandable reasons the Government have chosen not to proceed with various of the recommendations. The process is either pick-and-mix or it is not. It will be simpler if it is not pick-and-mix, but I suspect that Ministers have taken a different view. If so, they cannot argue that proposals made in the House that are not in the Patten report, such as a change in the quota process, are not acceptable because they are not in the report. Each proposal must be decided in its merit.
  Most hon. Members want the Bill to be passed, and I hope that our amendments in Committee will be seen as contributing to improving the Bill. I hope also that we will be able to discuss these matters constructively, and that in doing so we have a good opportunity to listen to the views of different parties. We can then make an informed decision. The most dangerous thing that we could do would be to entrench ourselves in existing views,
  210
  which have been rehearsed here many times, and have rarely led to progress such as movement by any side in the process.
  I hope that we will use the Bill as a way to move forward, perhaps beyond its current contents to measures that are much closer to Patten's full recommendations. Liberal Democrats hope to make a positive contribution, and we sometimes make remarks that people find uncomfortable because we believe them to be right or because sometimes it is important for individual Members to break taboos to get to the truth. If that is the spirit of the debate, it will be constructive. I hope more than anything else that by doing so we can improve the quality of policing in Northern Ireland, and thus also the quality of life.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). I entirely agree that the Bill cries out for a Committee stage, which must be constructive because we have to get it right, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us forcefully. A cry went out, "Get it right for whom?", and I humbly suggest that we have to get it right for Northern Ireland.
  From the beginning of the process, the Secretary of State's clear attitude has been that he will approach the debate with an open mind. That augurs well for the Committee stage, but the Bill will need fine-tuning. Indeed, on an important point about safeguards in inquiries, my right hon. Friend indicated that he might have gone too far. I hope that he will not be overcome with generosity because we need safeguards.
  I welcomed much of what the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said. I do not agree with the amendment in his name, but I entirely respect it, his right to table it and his party's right to vote on it. I hope that, subject to the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in which I have every confidence, members of my former party will abstain in the main vote. I would be relieved if they did so and I would commend them for it. We can and should have a vigorous Committee stage. Bearing in mind that there is such a basis of agreement on Patten and on the Bill, we can also have a decent Report stage and Third Reading when we can express reservations.
  I know that I am not the ideal person to suggest to members of my former party how they might vote—
  Mr. McNamara: Yes you are.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's remark. I suggest with all humility that, if Conservative Members support the Bill, they will make a major contribution to delivering peace to Northern Ireland.
  I want to quote from a paper that I do not read very much these days; I thought that no one could doubt me if I did so. The Daily Telegraph of 9 September 1999 expressed reactions—admittedly they were mixed—from RUC officers to the Patten report. One quote says it all in my view:
  A sergeant based in the south of the province said: "Did anyone ever expect Patten to come back and say, Keep it up, you're doing a great job? Of course the name change will offend some people,

  211
  but at the end of the day, his plans would just turn us into a normal British force. Change is not a problem for us, we only hope that the Catholic community responds and that we are allowed to change without the threat of terrorism hanging over us."
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House may agree that that says, at least, most of it.
  I wanted to quote the views of an RUC sergeant for obvious reasons. The Bill is about change. It is about normalisation: it is about a normal British force. It is about a change of culture—about a change from policing the troubles to policing with and for the people. It is about each community responding. It is also, of course, about the withdrawal of the constant threat of terrorism. It is part of a wider peace process. I ask everyone to take a constructive approach, not least in Committee. I believe that if we fail with the Bill, and if we fail with the implementation of the Patten recommendations, the peace process will go into a decline that none of us wants. We must therefore get it right.
  The question of the Patten report and the institutions is pivotal: it is a cornerstone of peace. It is regrettable that the Bill and the Patten report have come into the front line; the reform would have been much easier if the institutions were up and running and decommissioning was under way. That, however, is not an option. There can be no going back, and no slackening of the pace. In no way is the past an option.
  One of my main worries relates to the RUC, and to its concerns. At the heart of those concerns is the feeling that a police change should not run ahead of progress towards peace—that demilitarisation should not include changes in the size of the police service while the terrorist threat remains. We all appreciate the dangers, but we are dealing with changes and normalisation that will take years. Even after 10 years, if Patten's recommendation is followed, there will be a substantial force of 7,500. I am confident that, if there is a threat, the Government—this Government, or the Government of the day—will meet that threat. They might be much better able to meet it if there were a force that was more acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland. The RUC is not just policing the change; it is an integral part of the change.
  Let me turn to specifics, and to cultural issues. Whatever we call the force—the Police Force of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Police, or whatever—the name must change. Patten is clear about that, for the right reasons. I think that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to recruit young Catholics without changing the name first, although there are many other aspects of the problem.
  We do, of course, salute the RUC for its role in the front line against terrorism. I especially remember the "Ulsterisation" policy of the mid to late 1970s. I am sure that a number of British soldiers owe their lives to the sacrifice that was made by RUC officers. Nevertheless, in terms of historical associations across the communities of Northern Ireland, I think it goes without challenge that the past of the RUC—and that of the Royal Irish Constabulary before it—while it has been commendable in recent years, has not always been clothed in glory. It is regarded very differently by the two communities, for obvious historical reasons.
  We need a fresh start, but the fresh start will not work unless the RUC, through its experience and tradition, forms the basis for its successor—of which it will be very much part: indeed, the successor force will not work without it.
  212
  Let me say something about the badge. We have talked about a crown and a harp—about the emblems of the two countries. I was the founding co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body; I believe that the right hon. Member for Bracknell was on the steering committee with me. At that time, we tried to create an emblem, or logo, for the body. Having considered the crown over the harp, the harp over the crown, the crown around the harp and the harp around the crown, we eventually threw up our hands and said that we could proceed no further. I therefore sympathise with Patten's view that perhaps no association with the emblems of the British or the Irish states would be advisable, and that we need a new badge and a new flag. I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Assembly has made progress in that direction.
  Let me say a little about accountability, reports and inquiries. I mentioned safeguards at the outset. I believe that the present position will be challenged in Committee—the provision, that is, that a minimum of 12 members of the policing board should vote in favour, which means that seven would be voting against.
  The minority is just as important as the majority in the context of establishing a permanent peace in Northern Ireland. Whoever constitutes the majority and whoever constitutes the minority, that must surely be the case. The arrangement cannot work if one overrides the other. I do not think that, if the board demanded an inquiry into a public-order incident at Drumcree, for instance, it would get off to a good start with a majority of 10 to nine. For the moment, I defend the Bill, and the Secretary of State's reserve powers. He is the democratic bottom line during a continuing transfer of authority.
  The same applies to codes of practice. The Patten report recommends that control be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible, but for the moment it rests with the House of Commons and the Secretary of State, who has responsibilities—not least for security matters. Codes of practice are therefore necessary.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I apologise for the fact that, owing to a late flight, I could not be present for the Secretary of State's speech.
  I am no admirer of the Patten report, nor does my party admire it. It is not that we have made a predetermined judgment; like the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), we recognise that Patten is a man of huge ability. Often, the difficulty with people of huge ability is that they know of that huge ability, which makes them arrogant and conceited. Patten felt that he could override the basic tenet of the Belfast agreement—that, for as long as the people of Northern Ireland so determined, Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom.
  Some people think that that goes too far; but what does it mean? How does one remain part of the United Kingdom? It means that one shares things that are common within the kingdom—the flag and other insignia—but not in an aggressive or offensive way. Flags have become aggressive symbols only in so far as they are used by one small section of society to intimidate another, and vice versa. That was not what was intended by those who conceived the Belfast agreement, but Patten cast aside all regard to the agreement.
  Sadly, I can imagine Patten's having the support of Sinn Fein-IRA, which has much to learn about democratic politics. It has not convinced some of us—and if

  213
  hon. Members had been where I was on Saturday night, they would have been even less convinced—that some of its members have become reconstructed. But it is much more saddening to find that not only Sinn Fein but the SDLP and the Irish Government, while paying lip service to the practical aspects of the agreement, do not give proper recognition to the spirit of it. That is one of the difficulties deriving from the debate.
  It is no good the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) reading us all a lesson on how we should move the process forward if there is no clear recognition of the rights of the people of both traditions in Northern Ireland. It should be a question not of pandering again and again to one tradition, but of whether we can have mutual respect.
  Patten also showed no awareness of the needs of, or the sacrifice made by, the RUC. I think of a late friend of mine, a Roman Catholic RUC sergeant, who was murdered by the IRA, in November 1975. His widow—Patten and his commission would have known this—was awarded £4,000, and £3,500 was awarded for each of her children. I think of another police widow who was awarded zero—nothing—but who, on appeal, was awarded £6,000. Those events occurred back in 1975 and 1976.
  It would have been reassuring if Patten had recognised that the sacrifice of the RUC goes wider and deeper than the men and women who died: it affects families and children. I have been associated with an organisation that is dealing with the trauma affecting police men and their families. Even today, one sees eight-year-old children requiring treatment because of the stresses and strains placed on RUC members and on their family life. Patten disregards that.
  When we consider a Bill, we cannot afford to disregard such matters. I hope that there is something to be done for those women—wives of RUC officers who were killed 25 years ago—who are living in poverty. However, that is another issue.
  I recognise, too, that Patten took a huge amount of the content of his recommendations from Ronnie Flanagan's fundamental review. I also recognise that the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, with which I have had some association, wholeheartedly and without reservation accepted—it would not have been my recommendation—a fundamental review. Regardless of whether Flanagan or the federation was right or wrong, each made proposals based on three criteria. As those criteria have already been rehearsed in the debate, I shall not waste my time rehearsing them again. However, the criteria are based on the level of violence and on change in response to society's needs.
  I should like to touch very briefly on the needs of society, because no hon. Member has yet talked about policing in terms of delivering something that society cannot do without. Currently, in Northern Ireland, we have a mafia sub-culture. It might have developed inevitably, because of the age that we live in, but I think that it has developed because we live e in the wake of 30 years of hideous terrorism.
  The sub-culture is corrupting our young people. The extent to which drugs are being used in Northern Ireland is frightening. There is some success, but not enough of it, and the drug dealers are winning the battle with the police. We need to keep a level of policing that can deal with that.
  214
  There is worse. There is a multi-million pound business in smuggling fuel—diesel fuel, heating fuel, motor fuel—not only into Northern Ireland, but into Great Britain. The tentacles of that organisation stretch far and wide. The business is depriving the Exchequer of nearly £1 billion annually. The Government admit to a £100-million figure for the trade, but that figure is rubbish. It is certainly more than £500 million, and information that I have recently received suggests that it is approaching £1 billion.
  Almost nothing is being done about the business. There are no special arrangements to deal with it, and there is no co-ordinated approach to tackling it between Customs and Excise, police, health and safety agencies, other planning bodies and everyone who could play a part. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is nodding. The business is a scandal, but the Government have not attempted to do anything substantial about it.
  I leave the House with the reality of the policing situation. I wanted to touch on other issues in my speech, but I do not have time. If I am fortunate enough to be selected to serve in Committee, I shall touch on many of them.
  I should mention one matter now. The Bill mentions codes of ethics, codes of practice, codes of this and codes of that—but when will we see them? We have to see them now. Quite bluntly, I do not trust those who are tasked with producing those codes not to pervert what we are attempting to do here today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate. It might sound rather grandiose, but today we are engaged in part of an awesome task—to create a peaceful community in Northern Ireland that is based on inclusivity and trust. The beginnings have begun in re-establishing the Executive, but we must now deal with the problems of the other institutions of state. In that context, we must address the issue of renewal or reformation—whatever one wants to call it—of the police service, to provide Northern Ireland with a new start and new dimension in policing and in security, which, as has been said so often in today's debate, has been supported by both sections of the community.
  It has also already been said that it would be disastrous if we missed this opportunity to address the policing issue. Our peace, security and prosperity will depend largely on policing. It is therefore incumbent on us all, regardless of which part of the community we come from, to listen, to learn, to advise and to give so that we can reach a consensus that produces acceptability.
  Every day, the communities in which I and many other Northern Ireland Members live see what has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis): a Mafia-type infiltration of our communities. We do not know the source of the infiltration—perhaps ex-paramilitaries. Perhaps it is simply a product of the ethos created by 30 years of violence. As I have said in the House before, after the psychological conditioning that has occurred in our community, we cannot and should not be expected simply to switch off violence.

  215
  Some things must be said rather boldly and up front. Much has been said today about recruitment and about how the problem of recruitment from the community from which I come and into which I was born—the Catholic community; but I represent the entire community—is the result only or primarily of the paramilitaries, particularly the IRA, preventing recruitment. That is a red herring.
  Let us bear in mind the recruitment figures from the establishment of the police force in Northern Ireland to 1970, before the violence occurred. Those figures showed a continuing decline in participation by the Catholic community. In addition, the ethos was created that there was a Protestant state for a Protestant people, and a Protestant police force for a Protestant people. That was an insult to the members of my community who joined that police force. However, that was the perception and reality of the situation then and today.
  No greater force promoted that ethos than the party represented by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He spoke about flags. I did not quite catch his reference, but he suggested that a minority categorised or classified flags as emblems of being part of its own community. There is no party more than the Ulster Unionist party that flew the flag of the United Kingdom as a party political flag. It was flown at every meeting and at every platform. That practice extended even to the paramilitaries. That is where symbolism becomes so important. That being so, it is equally important that we set forth on a new beginning, move away from the symbolism and attitudes of the past and create a new peace in our society for the community from which I come and the community of the Protestants or Unionists, however we might designate them. I hate using those words but they have already been used this afternoon. There is a need for a new police service which both communities can fully participate in and support. If that does not come about, the present situation will continue.
  I am talking not about what is happening in no-go areas, but in go areas. Heavies are visiting our streets and local communities and putting to rights, as they see it—the right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) referred to the jury, judge and executioner—relatively small crimes. At the same time, we have the overpowering and overreaching problem of drugs. That is the ethos that we are trying to change.
  We in the SDLP have a broader vision of the policing service that goes beyond the Bill. The Secretary of State has announced that he has published an implementation plan, which I have not yet seen. There is also the work of the oversight commissioner. There must be overall delivery if the Patten report is to be implemented.
  It seems that Patten has been presented today as a demigod. He was only one member of an international commission that took evidence at every crossroads in Northern Ireland. It presented a compromise that it thought would work in our society. The Patten report is or was the compromise. That is why we in the SDLP, with some misgivings in certain areas, broadly support the Patten concept.
  We are worried that the Bill does not reflect the Patten report and the compromise. We have identified 44 areas of concern where the Patten report will not be
  216
  implemented, or not fully implemented. If we are to be successful in creating a new police service for our communities, these matters must be addressed.
  In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that he had an open ear and that the Government would consider constructive amendments to the Bill. That is to be welcomed. However, we must deal with what is in front of us and not with what we are promised.
  I do not have time to go into the many areas that constitute the 44 problems that we have identified. However, one of the major areas of concern is the lack of powers of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The Patten report proposed a new police board that would ensure accountability, especially in terms of reports and the initiation and conduct of inquiries. We feel that the Bill falls far short of those proposals in many instances.
  For example, the Chief Constable can refuse to allow the board to undertake an inquiry. The Secretary of State will be able to stop an inquiry taking place if it is deemed that it would not be in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. What does that mean? How is that to be interpreted and who is to interpret it? An inquiry can be initiated only if the re is a weighted majority of the board. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) referred to 12 out of 19. That is perhaps significant because 12 is two more than the number of elected representatives that will be appointed to the board.
  The elected representatives will come from a broad cross-section of political representation. They should not be deemed to have common cause on a party or partisan basis. The 10 elected persons, of the 19, should with others have the right of a normal majority to make a decision.
  There are many other issues that I should like to touch on—for example, the code of ethics. Why should such a code or a code of conduct, which would be desirable or acceptable, not be applicable to all members of the new police service? Why should it relate only to new recruits? Surely all members of the service do the same job on the same basis, with the same ethics.
  I look forward to consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Secretary of State has said that he will have an open ear and I hope that he and the Government will consider constructive proposals for change.
  7.7 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is a privilege to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I share his perception of the importance of policing in developing the new arrangements in Northern Ireland.
  I repeat what I have said previously in the House, by declaring an interest. RUC officers guarded me for a number of years. As a former Minister with responsibilities for security in Northern Ireland, I appreciated their professionalism and dedication. Anything that I say is shaped by those experiences, and I make no apology for that.
  I welcome much of what is in the Bill. On a previous occasion, I said that the Secretary of State was right to seize the opportunity to make radical changes to the policing system in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that during the past 30 years it would have been exceptionally difficult to make such

  217
  radical changes. He has an opportunity, and he is right to take it. He is right also to try to establish good practice. If I may say so, he is right in addition to distance himself as far as possible from policing matters to allow local influences much more to be brought to bear. He should remain the democratic last resort. Recent history in Northern Ireland suggests that from time to time that may be important.
  There may have been a change of Government in 1997, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the ethos of the Northern Ireland Office and the advice that the Secretary of State has received have probably not changed as much. An innate conservatism has encouraged the right hon. Gentleman to move a certain distance but not to get too radical. I suggest that he has an opportunity to be more radical than perhaps his advisers would wish him to be. The new policing board does need to be set up. I had inside knowledge of the difficulties that we had with the old Police Authority for Northern Ireland. My colleagues and I spent too much of our time trying to resolve issues that arose between the Chief Constable and the chairman of the authority. The policing board provides a wonderful opportunity. The Secretary of State should give it as much power and significance as his radical instincts will permit, always protecting his role as Secretary of State ultimately.
  What bothers me about the Bill—I pick up the word "interlock" that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) used—is that it is too much in a politicised setting. Like others in the Chamber, I can reflect back 50 years and more. The police in Northern Ireland were always seen in a political context. The hon. Members for South Down and for Newry and Armagh both know of my long concern that the majority of 1aw-abiding people in the nationalist community got caught up in the wash of the tough policing that had to be undertaken to try to detect and prevent terrorism. Their political views were influenced by it, although they were not to blame.
  I therefore accept the point that those two hon. Members have made—that it is too simplistic to say that there were always voices that said, "We will intimidate you out of the RUC." It is much more complex than that, although both would, I think, agree that hard-line republicans link support of the police with support of the state, to the detriment of both.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not be over-influenced by some of the more emotional voices in the Unionist community. People are wrapping their arms around the police as if they were, in perpetuity, Siamese twins, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I remember how a number of people behaved in the aftermath of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I remember the loyalist and Unionist attacks on the police. I remember the rhetoric when policemen were burned out of their homes because they were not bowing to the will of the anti-agreement faction and were upholding the law of the land. Therefore, I take with a pinch of salt—
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: No. I have only five minutes. I will go on.
  I would be somewhat concerned about attaching too much attention to those points. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear me say that, underneath
  218
  that disgraceful behaviour, there was a core of solid, respectable, loyal, law-abiding Unionists who attached themselves to the state, who gave significance to their British citizenship and who saw the RUC and policing issues in that context. If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to make that point without interruption, I would have gone on to say that I agreed with much of what he said.
  The point I am making to the Secretary of State is that we are in danger of getting politicised, at a time when there is an opportunity to move away from politicisation. In that regard, I have particular concern about clause 15 and the district policing partnerships. I understand why they are there. I understand the importance that he attaches to them, but they are a recipe for considerable political mischief, as are clause 43 and the quotas.
  The Secretary of State got lumbered with the Bill as part of the Good Friday agreement. It would have been better if it had not been part of the agreement and if there had been a separate but parallel determination to deal with policing issues, but he is lumbered and it is now politicised.
  I say something to the Secretary of State that he has heard me say before. He has two options. He can use his considerable political skills, to duck and weave, zig and zag and produce an Act that satisfies no one; or he might decide to go ahead, to implement the 80 to 90 per cent. of the Bill that should be implemented, then to draw on the political strength of arrangements that are in place and will get better with the passage of time, and use that political strength some time in the future to implement the rest of Patten as Patten was written. I fail to see how an Act that ultimately satisfies no one will aid him as he seeks to develop the peace process.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: As I look around the Chamber, I think that I am just about the only Member who has ever served in a police force with the prefix "Royal". I refer to the Royal Military police. I say to some of the hon. Gentlemen across the way that some of those who campaign to retain the title "Royal Ulster Constabulary" remind me of some of the campaigners who sought to retain the titles of our ancient regiments and warned of all sorts of dire consequences over the amalgamations that successfully took place.
  I thank the Secretary of State for his response to my question concerning what I see as the inferior role of the policing board vis-à-vis the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. I will study his answer with care tomorrow, but I am grateful for his response and hope that that indicates—as some of his other responses did—that he will be open-minded when we come to amend the Bill in Committee and on Report. The Bill needs it; it needs radical amending.
  Among many other things, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) talked about the need to bring Northern Ireland more closely into kilter with other nations and regions of the United Kingdom. One way of doing that, if that is what he seeks to achieve, is by normalising the police service in Northern Ireland. I need hardly remind him that, in my part of Scotland, the chief constable is responsible to the police board, which is made up of local representatives from the councils that make up Strathclyde. The legislation for that police force and for the policing in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

  219
  I have done this before: I, too, offer my tributes to the many brave members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In preparation for the debate, I sought to meet as many as I could. I met members of the Police Federation, widows of RUC officers and disabled officers.
  I offer my compliments to the federation's members for taking their case to Dublin, where I met them again. They themselves said that they had had a fair hearing from the Taoiseach, his colleagues and officials. I have listened to their understandable concerns about what they see as the unintended—as well as intended—consequences of police reform, but, in all those meetings, I said that I supported the case for radical police reform.
  In the time that I have available, I want to offer a couple of criticisms of the Bill and to ask the Secretary of State a couple of questions with which I hope that he will deal. As has been said, Patten and his colleagues argued for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland. As hon. Friends have said, we must aim to enact legislation that will allow leaders in both communities to say to young people, if they are of a mind, "You can pursue a career, a fine and decent career, in the police service—in that area of public service." I can say that to young men and women in my constituency and I hope that the day will dawn when Members in both communities can say the same to their young people.
  The Bill falls short of that aim, particularly in the requirement for democratic accountability and impartiality. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the policing board, it will be the junior partner in its relationship with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State. I want the policing board to be strengthened.
  It is essential that Mrs. O'Loan, the police ombudsman, should be given unrestricted access to information that she believes is germane to any investigation that she initiates. Clause 61 needs to be amended to enable her to conduct examinations efficiently and effectively—a familiar phrase to us all. At the least, the word "reasonably" should be struck out of the clause. Part VII, which is concerned with the role of the ombudsman, needs to be amended. As she goes about her work, she must have due regard to the public interest as she sees it. Similarly, she must be actively engaged in the drafting of a code of ethics. The role of the ombudsman is critical to the creation of a new and widely respected police service. That important role has to be acknowledged in the Bill.
  There are many other concerns, including the three-year review. It has to be a thorough-going analysis that leads to prescriptions for the improvement of procedures. The 10-year date must be checked again, as must the question of aggregation. As a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland, I have serious concerns about the subject. My right hon. Friend should give serious consideration to a new oath incorporating a commitment to full respect for the traditions and beliefs of both communities, as recommended by Patten. He should ensure that the substance of the oath is applicable to all serving officers, as well as to the new recruits who I hope will come forward from both communities.
  Patten recommended that district policing partnerships should meet in public. The Bill does not provide for that, but I think that they should do so wherever and whenever possible to uphold the principles of local accountability.
  220
  Patten also recommended that the recruitment agency should be able to target Catholics originally from Northern Ireland but working in police services outwith Northern Ireland. I know that there are some in Scotland. He also recommended lateral entry of such experienced officers. That could be used as a tool to ensure representativeness at senior levels of the police service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure us that the recruitment agency will be able to target such personnel.
  Patten also said:
  it is not satisfactory to suggest, as some people have, that one should somehow accept that every organisation has … "bad apples." They should be dealt with.
  If the House will forgive me for mixing metaphors, bad apples should be rooted out and the policing board should have the power to do that. We cannot afford that kind of officer in the new police force.
  Finally, I shall address some of my pet concerns. If we are to have new policing and want to talk about badges and changing the design of the uniform, which needs to be redesigned—I think that Patten is wrong on that—why not change the colour of the uniform? All the police forces round about, including Strathclyde and the Garda Siochana, have blue uniforms. The new police service in Northern Ireland should also have a blue uniform. Given that the words "Royal Ulster" strike such a resonance with some Opposition Members, if they cannot accept the Patten recommendation for a new title, why not call it the Northern Ireland constabulary? We have the Fyfe constabulary in Scotland, so why not the Northern Ireland constabulary? We need a police Act that enables people in both communities to believe that they can follow a good career in the police service.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: This is a rotten Bill. Future generations will rise up and curse the name of the Secretary of State for having introduced a Bill that rewards terrorists and punishes the police service. It is a sad and ugly irony that on the day that the police in Northern Ireland have given details to the BBC's security correspondent of their investigations into the murder of a man in Dunmurry 10 days ago at the hands of the Provisional IRA, the Secretary of State has introduced a Bill asking us to put on to police boards and partnerships throughout the Province people who are tied to the organisation that carried out that killing.
  No doubt, under the Bill, there will be a choice of former and present IRA army council members for membership of the new police board. In the partnerships across Northern Ireland, there will be a choice of many activists and leading members of Provisional IRA. It will be of no comfort to the community in Northern Ireland that the Secretary of State is prepared to proceed with a Bill that will bring the Provisional IRA a role in policing in Northern Ireland even though they are still active in terrorism there. What confidence can that give to the people of Northern Ireland? It will give no confidence to the people of the community that I represent.
  The Bill is the child of the Belfast agreement, as well as of the Patten commission report. Those who negotiated the Belfast agreement, those who signed it, those who went out into the roads of Northern Ireland and asked people to support it and those who voted for it in the referendum have cost us dearly in terms of the future

  221
  policing of Northern Ireland. Whatever one might say about Patten, he faithfully represented the remit given to him in the Belfast agreement. There is no getting away from the fact that that agreement gave explicit and detailed instructions to the Patten commission. Those who were involved in the Belfast agreement cannot wash their hands of the destruction of the RUC under the Bill. The genealogy is clear and damning.
  Many words of praise and tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been spoken. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) suggested that anyone who has ever criticised any action of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was not entitled to support its continuation and maintenance. It has been used on many occasions to uphold a political decision. That is a fact of life and we all know it. The fact that many people have disagreed with those political decisions and made known their opposition to them in no way undermines or diminishes their regard or support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  I have many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in my family. The force has acted with distinction through all its years of service in Northern Ireland, and has acted efficiently and even-handedly. It has acted with gallantry and devotion, and it has been punished by this Government for the many sacrifices that it has made.
  The reality is that over 300 RUC members were murdered in this campaign of terrorism. Thousands of its members have been maimed and mutilated. Many will bear the scars of terrorism upon them for the remainder of their days. While the RUC is to be destroyed under this Bill, the IRA remains intact. While all the operational effectiveness of policing is to be diminished under the Bill, the IRA still holds on to its arms, its bombs and its operational capacity. That is the realty. What kind of topsy-turvy world is it when this House—the cradle of democracy and the mother of Parliaments—decides to reward terrorists and to punish those who are responsible for the exercise and functions of law and order?
  I had expected this evening that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) would be here. I was hoping that, during his remarks, he would produce from his inside pocket the letter with which he tantalised the Ulster Unionist council and which he indicated had been of such profound significance that it had caused him to move from being a sceptic to a supporter during that famous occasion only a Saturday or so ago.
  The indication was that the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the assurances that he had received earlier that week. However, the contents of the piece of paper in his pocket—I am not sure whether it was from the Secretary of State, who may want to make a confession, the Prime Minister or Leo—were of such significance that they caused the right hon. Gentleman not only to vote in favour of the restoration of the Executive, but to advise and encourage others to do so.
  If the Secretary of State has given some assurances, undertakings, commitments or promises to the right hon. Member for Strangford in that grubby little piece of paper in his inside pocket, the Secretary of State owes it to the House, as we debate this Bill, to divulge what those undertakings, commitments or promises may be. It would be of no service to this House if the Secretary of State held back from us some additional commitment that was not in the public arena.
  222
  I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Government representative will indicate in the clearest terms whether the right hon. Member for Strangford has in his inside jacket pocket some assurances that have not yet been announced publicly. It would be of no avail if we were to go into Committee without the opportunity to see what this matter of such importance was that caused the Damascus road experience of the right hon. Member for Strangford.
  I will oppose this Bill at every possible stage. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better from this Government. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to be proud of the RUC and want to continue to give support to it, no matter from what section of the community they may come. It is an organisation with a fine tradition; an organisation whose bonds have been cemented by the many sacrifices that have been made. This House will do a disservice to the RUC if it disregards the service it has given.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: In my limited experience in this House, I have heard many right hon. and hon. Members say that great speeches have been made. On many occasions, that has been polite rather than true. However, tonight I have heard speeches from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) that rank high in the parliamentary canon, and I feel privileged to have heard them tonight.
  I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has recovered from an unfortunate incident in Dungannon last week. He is a gentleman whose integrity and courage have earned him many friends and admirers within this building—many from among those who one would not usually associate with those categories. I am proud to be one of them and I hope that the House will welcome the hon. Gentleman back following that unfortunate injury.
  There has been talk that the implementation of the Patten report and the Bill is somehow a peripheral matter in the broad sweep of modern history and in comparison with the Good Friday agreement. If I say nothing else tonight that is remembered, I wish to say that this Bill is vital not just to the development of peace in Northern Ireland, but to the furtherance of the Good Friday agreement.
  Last night, I heard Pat Doherty MLA state that, in his opinion, the Bill was more important than the Good Friday agreement. I disagree. It is not more important, but the successful implementation of Patten is central to the Good Friday agreement. That is why it is vital that we do not lose track of what the Secretary of State is trying to do. As has been said, this is not Patten pure or Patten pale. It may be Patten pragmatic, but it is Patten with potential for peace and progress.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State and the Government to implement every jot, comma and semi-colon of Patten? The Government were obliged—and committed—to deliver an independent commission and then debate its recommendations. Surely we are not bound by every single dot, comma and syllable of Patten.
  Mr. Pound: The fact that Secretary of State is assailed by the Scylla and Charybdis of Unionism and nationalism

  223
  on either side indicates to me that he is doing a fairly good job. If the House were unanimous in either condemnation or support, I would be worried. My hon. Friend is correct that that is not our remit tonight.
  We must be aware also of the position of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who are our supportive partners in the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. Any casual glance at the press and media in the Republic of Ireland will confirm that we cannot underestimate the significance of the implementation of Patten in the other 28 counties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twenty-six."] I apologise. It has been many years since my family sprang from the fertile soil of county Cork.
  I have been pleased to hear that some of the concerns expressed today have been addressed by the Secretary of State, or that he has indicated that he is responding to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about the restriction of the ombudsman' s powers, and we had an indication that that was under review. The question of the restriction of district policing partnerships to sub-groups for the Belfast area has been raised. I see from the Bill that it is now suggested that there will be sub-groups within the Belfast area, and I am delighted to see that.
  The question of the oath has been raised by many people. We have been told that for the oath to be attested by serving men and women of the RUC would be illegal; that it would somehow create a new RUC; that it would be impossible; and that it would be subject to legal challenge. I implore my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look again at this subject. If there is one thing that would draw a line in the sand and say that we were starting the new policing of Northern Ireland from this day and in this way, it is the symbolic significance of the oath. Oaths and symbols, as we know, are important.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the question of political appointments and was concerned about a political ratcheting. In many ways, it is the hardest possible thing for someone who lives in the safety of west London—distant from the issue, albeit close to Hammersmith—to ask men and women who have lived their political lives, in many cases their whole adult lives, in the shadow of the gunman and the bomber, to accept that there is such a thing as redemption. Is that so presumptuous of me? I ask whether it is not better, in some ways, for people such as Cathal Crumley, who was elected mayor of Londonderry last night, to be inside the political process than to be outside on the streets with the guns.
  I may be being presumptuous, and it may be intensely difficult or even impossible for hon. Members, but I implore them at least to consider the prospect that some people who have engaged in gangsterism—or terrorism or freedom fighting, call it what one will—have a future in a democracy. That future will not exist if they are excluded. They must be brought in and included if the process is to mean anything at all.
  Birth is a painful process, and rebirth can be equally painful. However, the glittering prize is almost in sight. The innate genius and extraordinary talent of the six counties of Northern Ireland—that great powerhouse with one of the best educational systems in Europe, which produces engineers, architects, poets, musicians, painters
  224
  and playwrights in profusion—depend on the process. The brakes can be taken off that extraordinary culture and it can achieve its full potential. Please let us look to the future, not the past. We can fight 1690 over and over again, but I am more concerned about 2090. There is talent in the Chamber tonight, and there is so much talent in Northern Ireland. Let us see that flower. Let us discuss the minutiae in Committee, but let us keep our eyes on the far horizon—on the future—and not over our shoulders to the blood-stained past.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has asked us to raise our eyes to the future and to leave the detailed dissection of the Bill to Committee. Perhaps he is correct. Perhaps this debate on the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be viewed in its overall political context.
  Immediately after the signing of the Downing street declaration, which stated that Britain no longer had any selfish economic or strategic interest in remaining in Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the then Prime Minister, made a national broadcast. He declared that the only people who could give peace were the men of violence, but everyone knows that peace from such men could come only from their suppression or their appeasement. I say with some regret and sadness that both the right hon. Gentleman and his successor chose appeasement. This Bill forms part of that appeasement.
  The IRA finally gave its answer to the plea for peace in its recent statement. It said that there would be no lasting peace until the British abandoned their claim to Northern Ireland and ended partition. All else in the statement was conditional on that. It also made it clear that the guns and the bombs would remain silent only for as long as the full implementation of the Belfast agreement facilitated the success of its objectives. The threat to the British mainland remains, as the recent bomb on Hammersmith bridge demonstrates. The retention of the IRA arsenal and the destruction and demoralisation of the RUC are the twin pillars of IRA strategy for attaining its political aims of the abandonment of the British claim to any part of Ireland and the end of partition.
  Ulster Unionists were lured into voting for re-entry into the Executive with Sinn Fein, partly on the promises of the published contents of this Bill. We should bear in mind the fact that the police board could include members of Sinn Fein, aka IRA, as could some of the local boards, but the Secretary of State had prudently withheld to himself and the Chief Constable certain powers. Now what has happened? There has been an immediate outcry from the SDLP which, acting as proxies for Sinn Fein—whose members do not grace this Chamber—has put forward amendments to which the Secretary of State has indicated he may agree. That will all be done to prevent the IRA from returning to violence. However, to adopt a policy of reducing security defences against terrorism and demoralising the RUC in the face of terrorists determined to remain armed is worse than a mistake. It is a crime. It is a crime that will be perpetrated on the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, who have for 30 years suffered death and destruction at the hands of terrorists.
  Those members of the armed forces and the RUC who have died in their hundreds—I see that this is a humorous subject for some on the other side of the Chamber—and

  225
  been maimed in their thousands in defence of democracy and the rule of law will all have suffered in vain, because terror and the threat of terror will have succeeded in achieving their objectives. No disciplined force, regardless of the quality of its administration or technology, will succeed if its morale is destroyed. The members of the RUC who risked all to remove terrorists from the community upon which they preyed have seen all those terrorists—murderers and violent psychopaths—returned to that community. The members of the RUC see serving members of the IRA army council installed as Government Ministers in charge of the education of their children. Those RUC members witness provisions in the Bill that will place members of Sinn Fein, whom the Prime Minister himself tells us are inextricably linked with the IRA, placed on the police board to which the Chief Constable will be accountable.
  RUC members know, as do the Chief Constable and the present police authority, that the removal of the RUC name will scarcely alter the idea of balanced recruitment. However, the imbalance is almost entirely due to the violence, social exclusion and intimidation offered to Catholic recruits, and that will continue until any police force is completely neutered of any anti-terrorist capacity, and it is that capacity that is the central issue.
  I shall draw a comparison from history. In 1918, the Royal Irish Constabulary—the predecessor of the RUC—which performed similar paramilitary duties against terrorism had a Catholic Chief Constable. Some 40 per cent. of its officers were Catholic and more than 70 per cent. of its constables on the ground were Catholic. That did not prevent Sinn Fein-IRA slaughtering more than 400 members of the RIC between 1918 and 1921. So the idea that a manufactured balance of Catholic recruits will make a difference is false.
  I come now to the use of the word "Royal" in the RUC's title, and in doing so I shall make some personal observations. My family has served the flag and the Crown of the United Kingdom for generations. As a common seaman, my father fought in the Royal Navy at the battle of Jutland. My maternal uncles fought in France: one of them died there, and the survivor served for a further 25 years in the Royal Marines. All my sisters and brothers served in the armed forces when they were of age. My brother served in the Royal Ulster Rifles and was wounded in Italy. My two sisters served in the Women's Royal Air Force.
  As a child of five, I saw the dead piled high after German raids hit within 100 yd of where I lived. In the morning, and at the going down of the sun, will we remember them? Or will we barter away their flag, identity and sense of belonging to appease those who hate everything for which they fought and died? This month, we celebrate the miracle of Dunkirk. A policy of appeasement almost destroyed the British Army and threatened the existence of this country and of democracy itself. Have we learned nothing from that?
  In 1938, to keep bombs out of London, the British Government abandoned the Czechs as they would now abandon the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland. Our national reputation reached its lowest ebb then. Its finest hour was to come, when the British Government stopped appeasing terror and confronted it. This country, which saved democracy for the world, cannot have declined so far that it cannot preserve democracy in a part of its own kingdom.
  226
  Lord Palmerston stated the infamous doctrine of realpolitik when he said that England had no long-term friends or enemies, only interests. For the sake of Northern Ireland and the continuance of the United Kingdom, I hope that he was wrong.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: This has been an extraordinary debate, in which hon. Members from all parties have made striking speeches. The Bill is significant and important, but equally important is the climate in which it passes through the House.
  I was struck by the speech of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), and by his wish that we could somehow move away from the politicisation of the RUC—but almost every other speech has made it clear just how political the issue is.
  I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the Bill is rotten. I consider it to be a Bill of hope and optimism, and I believe that the changes that will flow from it will bring about lasting peace in Northern Ireland. It undoubtedly arouses passion, which is why I regret the fact that the Conservative party, although it says that it broadly supports the Bill, will nevertheless decline to give it a Second Reading.
  The Bill's success depends on more than merely gaining sufficient votes to secure a Second Reading. For real success, it will require a climate in Northern Ireland in which success can prosper. That is why I hope that the Conservative party will at least reconsider whether it is right not to support Second Reading.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) began his speech with a substantial tribute to the RUC. No hon. Member would wish to dissent from a word of that tribute, as we all recognise the bravery, courage and enormous sacrifice of RUC members. The organisation rightfully deserves the George Cross that has been conferred on it. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that we will always remember.
  Patten's role was to judge the competing evaluations of police reform. We must remember the importance of the exhaustive consultation process, which involved all communities in Northern Ireland. Patten produced a reasonable and fair assessment of the broad range of attitudes towards the RUC.
  I regret that a Conservative party briefing note should state that the party considers there to be no justification for changing the name of the RUC, and that the Patten report can offer no evidence to support the proposal because none exists. I draw the attention of the House to that note because the Patten report consultations contained endless justification and evidence for the implementation of the proposed change. It would be irresponsible to ignore that evidence and that justification.
  Beyond Patten, there is a great deal of survey data from Northern Ireland to show that there is strong support for the proposal among the Catholic and nationalist communities, and a widespread disenchantment with the RUC. That disenchantment may or may not be fair, but there is a widespread and deeply held perception among Catholics and nationalists that the RUC is biased towards Protestants.

  227
  It has been noted this afternoon that the intimidation of Catholics has prevented some from joining the RUC in the past. Many other factors are involved, but the intimidation of Catholics does not by itself constitute a sufficient reason to resist change. We must hope that we can change things in Northern Ireland. If we lose that hope and optimism, there will be no change and the status quo will persist. The deaths, maimings and bombings will continue, as will the tragic loss of life—among ordinary people and among future soldiers, policeman and RUC members. We have to hope that change can happen, and that it can be achieved.
  I disagree with the Conservatives when they say that there is no justification for changing the name of the RUC. The communities in Northern Ireland have made it clear that they want change to come. Surveys show that Catholics feel that reform of the police service is essential to a lasting settlement. Substantial changes have to be made to achieve a lasting peace. The evidence is that many people feel that the RUC must be reformed, but not disbanded.
  We in this House must be careful to avoid stereotypes. The changes are not desired only by nationalists, nor are Unionists their only authentic opponents. The Bill will create change that is fair to everyone, regardless of community or religious belief. It is fair in spirit and letter.
  The Bill is about a commitment to change, but it in no way undermines the historic and courageous role of the RUC in the past, in the present and in the future.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Rubbish.
  Mr. Woodward: To suggest otherwise is deliberately mischievous. The Bill recognises the need for change to build on the success of the past in order to deliver a lasting peace. That peace will be for those who serve and have served in the police forces but—crucially—it will also be for the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion, faith or community background.
  I am 41 years old. I grew up watching the violence in Northern Ireland, and I know from friends and members of my family what living through that violence has been like. Many hon. Members have closer experience of that than I do, but that does not mean that we cannot make the situation better. The Bill offers hope and a chance for change.
  Names are not carved in stone. A change of name will not take away pride in the RUC's achievements, nor will it detract from the heroism of RUC members. To suggest otherwise is, again, wholly misleading. The Tory motion proposes that the House decline to give the Bill a Second Reading because
  it fails to preserve the proud title and insignia
  of the RUC.
  That is wholly disingenuous. It is not what the Secretary of State has said; it is not what the Bill says. It is a recognition that to bring those communities together for the future, for those young people, we need change. If that requires a change in the name, what are we really standing for? Are we standing for the past or for the future? Do we work for the young people in Northern Ireland, with their hopes and dreams, or do we simply say to them that,
  228
  because of the past, we are stuck and we cannot change? We listened, and we heard that change must come if we are to deliver that trust.
  That is what the Bill is about—trust. If Ronnie Flanagan can say that if the sacrifice of a change of name is required he will endure it, however painful, and if others supporting the police forces can say that if a change of name is necessary they will deliver on that, however painful, however long the consultation period and whether it is justified or not, are we right to politicise this matter by refusing to give the Bill a Second Reading even though the Opposition apparently agree with so much of it? Is it right not to assist in creating the climate for change? If we deliver, and if we create that climate, we will, through the Bill, have contributed in a real and positive way to ensuring a lasting peace.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) will allow me to congratulate him on a speech that he concluded 10 minutes ago, and to say that I endorse every word that he said.
  In theory, there, is no organisation or institution that cannot from time to time benefit from reform. Efficiency and effectiveness can generally be improved, and in this respect, the Royal Ulster Constabulary is no exception. It has been pointed out that a number of the Patten proposals are non-controversial, and that several reflect the findings of the Chief Constable's fundamental review of five or six years ago. However, that is not the point tonight. The point is the wider political context in which the Bill has come into existence and of which it is part. That context, I argue, makes the Bill wholly unacceptable. Its implementation will be an affront to decency and democracy. It is the ultimate denigration of a magnificent police force.
  We should have no illusions about the wider political context. The unconditional release of their prisoners, retaining their weapons until their political objectives have been achieved, and the abolition of the RUC, are among the key demands of the Provisionals, in return for scaling down their armed struggle. Their first two demands have been met, or partially met; all terrorist prisoners entitled to early release will have been released before long. They are back in the Executive without decommissioning, and they have no intention of decommissioning. With this Bill, their third demand is met—the RUC will soon be no more. It matters very little, if anything, whether the name remains on some title deeds, whatever those may be.
  There are convincing pragmatic security arguments as to why the Bill should be rejected. The principal argument is, I maintain, overwhelming. On security grounds, it can and should be argued that the terrorist threat remains real. The terrorists' capability is undiminished. While that is the case, it is sheer madness to move towards or implement changes that endanger our ability to counter terrorism. I have in mind the broad thrust of the Patten proposals that the Bill facilitates—reductions in the strength and capability of the police force in Northern Ireland, the abolition of the RUC reserve, and changes to special branch, which would undermine its intelligence-gathering and intelligence-monitoring capability. In particular, it is wholly unacceptable that the political representatives of terrorist

  229
  organisations should sit on the policing board and on district policing partnerships while those organisations retain the capability to wage their armed struggle. It is unacceptable that those representatives could include people with a track record of personal involvement in terrorist violence.
  The Bill matters so much to the Government, the Provisionals and their fellow travellers in the pan-nationalist front because it is an integral part of the winding down of the British state it Ireland, as the Provisionals put it—British withdrawal, preceded by a progressive process of disengagement, as a Labour party paper put it. That is the understood agenda for the Provisionals, but not for others, not to renew their mainland campaign.
  As for the context of the Bill, violence and the threat of violence have dictated every phase of this wretched process. Over the years, violence and the threat of violence have drawn concession after concession from successive British Governments. Most recently, it led to the Ulster Unionist council's capitulation on 27 May. It is the reason why we have this Bill, and why the RUC is, effectively, to be abolished.
  One speculates that the Bill may prove not to be the British Government's final act of appeasement, but it is certainly one of the most sordid.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: I do not want to pursue the apocalyptic rejectionist vision that we have just heard. I want to talk about the difficulties of policing in any democratic society. There is no such thing as an ideal world in which to police. The police have to deal on a day-to-day basis with traffic problems, neighbour disputes, crime, robbery, violence and drunkenness. In Northern Ireland they have to deal with other matters as well. The Patten report was produced not just with those other matters in mind, and I do not think that we should spend the whole of this debate talking just about those matters.
  The Bill, and the Patten report on which it is based, which, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out earlier, came out of the Good Friday agreement, are about improving the system of policing in Northern Ireland, as well as dealing with the wider questions of legitimacy and the involvement of the whole community.
  The Bill has been introduced because the commission was set up
  to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland including means of encouraging widespread community support for these arrangements …
  It was set up to make recommendations, not to make conclusions that the Government had to accept lock, stock and barrel. There is a danger of cherry-picking, and I therefore have some sympathy with the night hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who referred to this earlier. However, it is important to recognise that the Government have to take account of the reactions, consultation process and discussions that there have been since the Patten report was published.
  The report deals with a large area under the heading "Culture, Ethos and Symbols". Paragraph 17.6 states:
  In our judgment that new beginning cannot be achieved unless the reality that part of the community feels unable to identify with the present name and symbols associated with the police is
  230
  addressed. Like the unique constitutional arrangements, our proposals seek to achieve a situation in which people can be British, Irish or Northern Irish, as they wish, and all regard the police service as their own.
  That must be the basis for our way forward. Otherwise, that persistent problem will continue to bedevil policing in Northern Ireland.
  I speak as a London Member of Parliament. We know that in our city we have not managed to recruit ethnic minority police officers. One third of my constituents are members of ethnic minorities, but only a small number are police officers. After the Macpherson report, the Metropolitan police service designed measures to deal with that. We have not done all that we need to do and there is still a problem.
  I refer to that, because in Northern Ireland, it could well be that, even though the top people in the police service are committed to change and to the new agenda—as they have been for many years—nevertheless a canteen culture has developed that makes it difficult to implement those changes locally. For that reason, I hope that the question of the oath is reconsidered in Committee. We need to challenge the persistent old-style canteen culture, which could act as an impediment to what the leadership of the police service, the Government and the Assembly are trying to achieve throughout society.
  Another problem that affects society throughout the world is that, in some communities, it is not acceptable for people to co-operate with the police—that is not encouraged. That is certainly true in some areas of London and other big cities. As Patten stated in paragraph 17.9:
  The aim must be that the police service should recruit not only more Catholics, but nationalists (of whom there are some but not many at the moment) and republicans (of whom there are almost certainly none now); and that there should be many more women, and, we hope, also more members from ethnic minorities and greater tolerance of sexual diversity.
  That is an important part of the report. It is not enough to recruit Catholics only from areas where they are under no pressure. We shall be able to say that the police service in Northern Ireland represents the whole community only when people from the Shankill and the Falls, from north and east Belfast, from Derry—from Londonderry—can join that police service while continuing to live and to be accepted in their own communities, where they went to school.
  Unfortunately, there have been several occasions over the years when people have had to leave their homes because they were terrorised—burnt out and driven out—and their families were threatened. The obligation on this place, on everyone in Northern Ireland and on all those who signed the Good Friday agreement is to encourage people to join the new service and to ensure that, when they do so, they do not have to leave their communities because of that fear of intimidation that has occurred in the past.
  It was interesting to see members of the RUC helping in Kosovo and to see British and Irish police officers working together in conflict areas throughout the world—for example, in Palestine. The Department for International Development and the Home Office are supporting training schemes whereby British, Irish and Northern Irish policemen and women are making a major contribution to instituting best practice throughout the world. That is good. Let us hope that, in future, there will

  231
  be best practice in all parts of Northern Ireland and the UK; that we shall learn from diversity and that we shall reflect all communities in our police service.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I have grave concerns about the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is leaving the Chamber. As someone who represents a large constituency in Northern Ireland, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate was condescending in the extreme and insulting.
  I represent many people in Northern Ireland—many young people. I happen to be the youngest Member of Parliament who represents a Northern Ireland constituency. Many young RUC officers and their families live in my constituency. The hon. Member for Witney has not listened to what those young people are saying. They find what is happening to the Royal Ulster Constabulary deeply hurtful, painful and insulting. He may have observed the events of the past 30 years from afar—I lived and breathed them. My family lived and breathed them.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke earlier. Two members of my family were carried out of his constituency—members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, murdered by the Provisional IRA. What is their sacrifice worth today? We are told that the name of the RUC is not in tablets of stone. With respect, it is on the tablets of stone that litter the graveyards of Northern Ireland.
  I have talked to the widows—many of them; I have talked to the disabled police officers and to the families of the officers who gave their lives. They find what the Government are doing deeply hurtful. Let us not swipe them aside as though they matter nothing—as though their views do not count; or as though some greater good means that they are not entitled to have their voice heard. Nor should the views of Ulster Unionist Members, who represent those people, be swept aside, as though they do not count either—because they do.
  Mr. Patten told us that his objective was to achieve a police service that could command widespread community support. Do the thousands of people in my constituency whom I represent not count when we add up that widespread community support? Do the people represented by my hon. Friends not count? Of course they do. I ask the Government and all hon. Members who support the Bill to consider how they will achieve widespread community support when many decent people in Northern Ireland—law-abiding people who have stood by the police and supported them through thick and thin—cannot support the Patten proposals. Where will the widespread community support come from?
  We have heard quotations from the Chief Constable and others, but the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, which represents ordinary police officers, has a clear view. The federation opposes the name change and has said so. Its magazine, "Police Beat", states that
  the deepest hurt of all is the removal of our proud title.
  I have met many RUC officers of all ranks who find that proposition unacceptable.
  232
  A petition of 400,000 signatures calling for the retention of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary was presented to No. 10 Downing street. Yes, we have had surveys, but the reality is that we have heard the voices of the people. They have spoken in election after election; a clear majority, represented by Ulster Unionist Members, finds the Patten proposals objectionable. However, it seems that we do not form part of the new consensus on widespread community support.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has supported the Belfast agreement but, like me, he objects to many aspects of the Patten report. Although we have a difference of opinion about the agreement, there is a broad consensus in my party about many aspects of Patten, including on the removal of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The fudge that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has come up with, which is about incorporating the words "Royal Ulster Constabulary" in the title deeds, simply will not do. That does not mean retaining the name of the RUC as a working title for the police service.
  We have heard much about recruitment. I am a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and I listened to the comments of the Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). He spoke about the contribution that had been made by Labour Members to the Committee's report, which called for the retention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's name and insignia. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) shakes his head, but I suggest that he read the Committee report to which he was a party. He will see that it concluded that the name and the symbol should be retained. That is a matter of fact and of record. However, it now seems that Labour Members have changed their view.
  We are told that the Bill will lead to more recruitment of Roman Catholics and I want that to happen. The Select Committee report called for that and we set out what I thought were reasonable, fair and balanced proposals that could achieve that aim. However, we should not underplay the efforts of the Provisional IRA and the impact that it has had on the recruitment of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. People can down play that fact all they want, but that is the reality and Roman Catholic officers who were courageous and joined the RUC were specifically targeted by the Provisional IRA. They were singled out for special attention and their families were targeted. That was a major deterrent against young Roman Catholics joining the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred to the murder in my constituency just over a week ago of Mr. Edmund McCoy. It now appears from the RUC that that murder was carried out by the Provisional IRA. No doubt, the Government will take their customary approach and turn a blind eye to the murder. Terrorist prisoners will continue to be released in spite of what the legislation passed by this Parliament says and Mr. McCoy's murder will go unnoticed. I am aware of Mr. McCoy's background but, whatever it was, it does not justify the Provisional IRA taking the law into its own hands and murdering him in cold blood.
  However, that is the IRA's idea of justice just as its idea of justice is what it did to the young man who is lying in a hospital in west Belfast, his body scourged by the Provisional IRA. He was beaten to a pulp and left for

  233
  dead—that is IRA justice. However, We now want to put its members on to the police board. What standards will that set? What about the district policing partnerships and the potential for influence from paramilitaries through their political representatives? I am concerned about that and the shape of the district policing partnership in west Belfast and the influence that it will have in that area. What safeguards will we have to ensure that paramilitaries do not have an undue influence on policing in such areas?
  There has been talk of downsizing the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The local police commanders to whom I have spoken are finding it difficult to cope at the moment with present levels of policing, so I am not sure how they will cope if police numbers are reduced significantly. We are told that we are bringing the RUC into line with other parts of the United Kingdom, but problems that are unique and distinct to Northern Ireland have not gone away. Dissident republican terrorism and loyalist terrorism continue and are a problem. I hope that the Government will give a firm commitment that they will retain the strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for as long as it is needed to combat the threat of violence and the levels of violence that exist in Northern Ireland.
  Car theft, joy riding, murder and beatings all continue. In my constituency, I see that everyday. Thieving emerges from west Belfast, thieves steal cars in Lisburn, Moira and Dunmurry and they attack properly. They can get away with that because police commanders do not have the personnel on the ground. The Government's policy of not recruiting does not help.
  I also appeal to the Government on behalf of the RUC Reserve. It is important that it be treated with equity and fairness in the process. It did a good job, it was professional and it acted with integrity. It should not be given a raw deal at the end of the process.
  I want to finish—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must finish now; he has had his 10 minutes.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I tend to approach Northern Ireland debates with a certain trepidation as I am aware of the sensitivities of the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made an excellent speech; Scylla and Charybdis are comparatively minor navigational problems at times in comparison with the issues that we are discussing.
  It is interesting to note that, for all the criticisms that have been made of the Patten report, the RUC in practice found the majority of it acceptable, and the majority of people of good will in both communities found the majority of the recommendations acceptable. It is worth remembering that. However, the report should not be seen as holy writ or like the law of the Medes and the Persians, if I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It was never intended to be that.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, the Good Friday agreement said that the report should come forward with recommendations that would then be the basis for consultation. Within reason, there should be a measure of flexibility. I recognise that
  234
  there are major concerns about the Bill. However, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggested, there is room for those to be considered in Committee.
  I recognise the concerns of nationalists about accountability and the balance of powers between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the police board, the ombudsman and the oversight commissioner. However, what my right hon. Friend said about the police board should be remembered. The intention is that there should be a steady evolution in parallel with an improvement in the security situation. In those circumstances, a sensitive and pragmatic compromise may be a more sensible way of proceeding than statute. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend said that he wishes to avoid capricious or vexatious use of the power of the bodies.
  It is fair to say that while the concerns of the nationalist community are more about organisational matters, those of the Unionist community have been more about what might be termed symbolic and cultural matters such as the force's name. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that, although we shall adopt a new name as was implied in Patten, the title deeds will recognise continuity with the RUC. Frankly, in most places probably the same name will be used on most vehicles and badges as is used throughout most of Europe. That is simply the word "police", which is not offensive to either community.
  Mr. Mallon: Other hon. Members share my concern. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to us all what the title deeds of the Bill are?
  Mr. Savidge: I take it to mean that there will be a record of the fact that the proposed police service for Northern Ireland will be established from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and preceding forces. I know that I am allowed further time for my speech if I accept interventions, but I cannot find time to add to my reply.
  With the short time at my disposal, I shall concentrate on the issue of symbols. Patten suggested that that was not as large a problem as the name. He acknowledged that to some extent there was a problem of gaining acceptance in both communities. He suggested that we should adopt a symbol that was free from all association with the British or the Irish state. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, the Deputy First Minister, supports that view.
  Let us consider the view taken in a previous debate by the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). That view was supported by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) today. It was suggested that the present symbols—the crown, the shamrock and the harp of Brian Born—were inclusive, so inclusive that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that some mystery member of the Government had said that if he were looking for inclusivity, that badge would be ideal.
  I have deep respect for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and I obviously respect members of the Government, however anonymous. I have less respect, perhaps, for the right hon. Member for Bracknell, but I would give serious consideration to their suggestion. However, I would be naive if I did not first say that I doubt whether it would be entirely acceptable to nationalists.

  235
  One should remember the associations that symbols acquire. For example, let us suppose that I suggested an alternative inclusive badge—a badge that would symbolically represent the Unionist community and the nationalist community, give exactly equal representation to both in size and in prominence, and place a symbol of peace between the two. I am referring, of course, to the original intention behind the green, white and orange tricolour. That is precisely what it was intended to do. Therefore, people could say that it was a wonderful symbol of peace.
  If I suggested to hon. Members in the Unionist parties that that would be an acceptable symbol of peace to be flown around Northern Ireland. they might say that I was naive and disingenuous, and some Unionists outside the House might use even stronger language than the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who spoke of being cursed for ever and who might use more colourful language to describe such a proposal.
  However, I take seriously the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and I notice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he takes it seriously. An alternative to the proposal to use the symbols of neither state, as supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Newry and Armagh and for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), is to consider the possibility of using the symbols common to both states—for example, the harp of Tara, or Boru, as it is sometimes described, and the shamrock.
  Obviously, the one symbol that is not equally acceptable to both communities is the royal crown. The royal crown is used in the cap badges of all English and Welsh police forces, although not necessarily in their other insignia. The royal crown is not used in the collective badge or most individual badges of the Scottish police forces; those that use a crown at all use a distinctively Scottish crown.
  Interestingly, Ireland has its own distinctive crown. Before Henry VIII adopted the harp as a symbol for Ireland, the traditional symbol of Ireland was the three antique gold crowns on a blue background, which was the mythical coat of arms of St. Edmund the Martyr. Is that a possibility? Would an antique gold crown that was uniquely Irish be acceptable to both communities? That coat of arms is still retained by the province of Munster, and therefore is part of the arms of the Republic of Ireland.
  I offer that as a suggestion, and wonder whether some design based on a permutation of the harp, the shamrock, the Irish crown, and possibly the blue flax flowers that have been accepted by the Northern Ireland Assembly, might show the continuity with previous policing, but the distinctiveness from it. I am sure that many other suggestions could be considered.
  When we speak of continuity with previous policing, we should not look back just to 1922 and the RUC. Why not look back to the common tradition from 1822 of the first ever police force in the British Isles in Ireland, and include the tradition of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1836, which specifically set out to get 50:50 membership from the Catholic and Protestant communities? That continuing tradition could run through into the Patten
  236
  proposals. I am pleased that there seems to be general acceptance of the idea of trying to get equal membership from both communities.
  We must assert the rule of law throughout Ireland. We need to end the existence of pretend policing and mock justice, whereby paramilitary thugs carry out their own vendettas using knee-cappings, beatings and, above all, murders.
  In view of the time, I shall close by saying that I in no way underestimate the enormous difficulties to be overcome and the enormous differences over policing matters between the two communities. I remain cautiously optimistic that, given sufficient good will and flexibility on both sides, those problems are not insuperable.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) had an interesting idea about the crown, although I am not sure that I entirely agree with it. However, I agree with him about the need for the rule of law to run throughout Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland. That is why many of us are concerned about the Bill.
  I worked closely with the Royal Ulster Constabulary for some time when I was in the Army and I tabbed the dismal streets of west Belfast with members of the RUC, both Protestant and Catholic. I saw them, warts and all. I saw prejudice in some members of the RUC. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Brooke) will recall that the first time we met, I berated him with my views on the RUC and how it was not pursuing as quickly as I wanted a victory in the terrorist war.
  However, I found the members of the RUC extremely brave, especially the Catholic members. After we had spent our five months in Belfast, we went home, but those who had to star behind—the policemen and women, Catholic and Protestant—had to live every day with the threat of a bomb under their car, their children being abducted, their wives being harassed, and so on. They are very brave, as we should all remember.
  In considering the Bill, I have spoken to friends in the RUC, including one particularly good senior officer, who has given me some interesting insights into it. They support much of what Patten said, as we have heard in the debate. Much of it deals with modernising policing in Northern Ireland, which needs to happen. We need to get rid of armoured Land Rovers, for example.
  I want to consider why there is a determination to change the symbols, and why we seem to be about to allow terrorists to take charge of policing in Northern Ireland through the policing board. First, on symbols, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that he had spoken to his constituents, who did not want to join the RUC because of various anti-police, anti-establishment views, if I may paraphrase the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is right. There is tremendous feeling against the RUC among many people. I have also observed that. However, the Government and the Patten report found that the main reason for that was the fear of intimidation.

  237
  The Government published a report in April 1998. It stated:
  More than half of all respondents reported that they thought there were too few Catholics in the police force … The main reason given for this by Catholic respondents was that Catholics would not join because they "fear intimidation or attack themselves or their relatives."
  It is not the only reason, but it is the main reason. The Patten report states:
  70 per cent. of Catholic respondents to the latest Community Attitudes Survey cited intimidation or fear of attack as the main reason why Catholics were deterred from entering the police …
  That is straightforward, and my experience confirms it.
  Let us consider the title "Royal Ulster Constabulary", to which many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, referred. It is interesting to note that there is a Royal Irish Academy, which is supported by the state. Seamus Heaney is a member. There are no riots on the streets of Dublin about that. The Lord Mayor of Dublin is vice-president of the Royal Irish Academy of Music. Ireland has a Royal Academy of Medicine, of which Patrick Hillery is a fellow. There is also the Royal Dublin Society; the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland; the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland; the Royal Victoria eye and ear hospital, Dublin; the Royal Irish yacht club; and the Royal Dublin golf club. Charles Haughey, who is not renowned for his Unionist tendencies, is a member of the Royal Cork yacht club. There is little evidence of the antipathy that we are told exists towards the word "royal".
  It is unfortunate that the debate has become such a party political matter. We must get away from the idea that every nationalist or republican in Ireland is opposed to the word "royal". Furthermore, many Irish people live in this country. I can see at least a couple of Labour Members of Irish descent in the Chamber. Some 8 million people on the mainland of Great Britain claim Irish descent—many more than the 5.3 million on the Island of Ireland. If they hate the crown and royal insignia so much, why are people, such as the Labour Members to whom I referred, willing to live here? I believe that they do not hate the word "royal" in the way people pretend. Perhaps they hate what they perceive to be a particular manifestation of "royal" in recent times.
  When I was in the Army, I met many Catholic soldiers from nationalist areas. In 1976 in Ballymurphy—a hard area—I bumped into someone who had been a Royal Irish Ranger and had trained with me a couple of months previously. He had joined after the beginning of the latest troubles. He did not mind serving in the "Royal" Irish Rangers. I regret that fewer Catholics join nowadays because of intimidation.
  Let us consider the policing board. The idea of Mr. McGuinness or Mr. Adams, both of whom, it is commonly believed, are members of the IRA army council—Mr. McGuinness has admitted as much—sitting on a policing board for Northern Ireland is outrageous. "Outrageous" is an awful term, but it is appropriate; it is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop. We should not allow it.
  Peace may mean that we have to assent to many matters that we do not want to accept. Like others, I might be prepared to accept Adams and McGuinness running policing in Northern Ireland if the IRA had moved. However, apart from one recent statement about arms,
  238
  it has not moved. No decommissioning has taken place; no weapons have been handed in. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) pointed out, beatings, murders and intimidation continue.
  Martin McGuinness is a Minister in the devolved Northern Ireland Executive. If he is also a member of the IRA army council, he will know who was responsible for the Omagh bombing nearly two years ago. He is a former member of the IRA and it would be easier to believe in the good faith of McGuinness and Adams if they co-operated and handed over the people responsible for the Omagh bombing and other atrocities. However, we hear nothing.
  What about Hammersmith bridge last week? Where did the Semtex or explosives that blew it up come from? I assure hon. Members that it came from an IRA dump somewhere. Somebody in the cell will know who is responsible and therefore the IRA high command will know it. Again, we hear nothing.
  I might accept the change that the Bill proposes if all aspects of the Belfast agreement were implemented. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh quoted Patten, a Conservative, and said that we should agree with him. In a letter to The Daily Telegraph in October 1999, Lord Mason stated:
  Above all, the suggestion that Sinn Fein/IRA be given "ownership" of the force by allowing them to be represented on the province's new policing board and on local committees is a madness worthy of Ken Livingstone's GLC, circa 1981. It has a particular piquancy for me, since I know that Sinn Fein/IRA have not given up violence.
  Earlier, the morale of the RUC was discussed. It is difficult to assess morale. My friend, whom I mentioned earlier, spoke of the genuine anguish that he and his colleagues feel as the Patten report is implemented. He is an intelligent, senior person and a decent man. He is a bit of a liberal, dare I say it. Many of his colleagues asked him whether they should vote for the Belfast agreement. He told them that they should because he believed that it was the best way forward for peace. He says that people now tend to avoid his eyes because matters are not progressing as he had hoped. The Patten report is one of those matters.
  The Royal Irish Constabulary used to be known—I may be wrong—as the black bastards because of the colour of the uniform. I have certainly heard the RUC referred to in similar vein in Belfast, but by Protestants and Catholics; it was not a sectarian matter. The IRA terrorised and killed RIC constables before partition. That was its tactic then, and it is its tactic now. I regret that the Government in the Bill and Christopher Patten in his report seem to be pandering to Sinn Fein and the IRA. It appears that they are looking for peace, but peace is not built on sand.
  The Bill is designed to change the sectarian composition of the force, and I welcome that entirely. Let us get more Catholics into the force, but I tell the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and Messrs Adams and McGuinness, who claim to support peace, that they have done nothing so far to encourage it. As the Patten report says, they could encourage people to join the RUC. They could change it now; they do not have to wait for a new order.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robathan: I fear that I cannot.

  239
  It is wishful thinking to believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA will change; there is no evidence or experience to show that they will. By emasculating the RUC, we are pursuing the IRA's aims.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: One of the joys of speaking relatively late in the debate is that, although most of what I was thinking of saying may have been said already, it provides an opportunity to consider carefully the main lines of opposition to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, the debate is not only about trying to give the Bill a following wind and a Second Reading, but about trying to achieve as much rapprochement as possible with those who feel deeply uneasy or hostile about it.
  I am struck by the fact that the efforts and impetus of those Opposition Members who have opposed the Bill in this debate and a previous one on an Opposition motion come back to their attitude to the decision in Patten report to put history to one side. That is a brave decision by Patten, but it has unquestionably created absolute fury among Unionist Members. They claim that putting history to one side means that the signal courage and achievements of the RUC are also put to one side.
  If we are to revisit history and ignore Patten's advice, we must do so even-handedly. We cannot incorporate into whatever arrangements we make a large chunk of Unionist history but very little nationalist history. Even-handedness is an absolutely vital part of the method of achieving progress. I shall spend some time on the history because, last year, I had the pleasure of talking for the last time to my then 97-year-old Uncle Tom, who died a couple of weeks ago at the age of 98 and a half. My cricket was never good enough to make a century, but I had hoped that either my Uncle Tom or my Uncle John, who died at the same age, might have done so. They moved away from Galway—which shows which side of the debate they were on—in 1926. The fact that someone's name or point of origin shows which side he or she supports is part of the issue. My uncles moved to America from a shattered and fragmented land that had been at civil war, but they never forgot it.
  I listened to music from what passed for a record player in my old uncle's house and he played a song called "Four Green Fields". The four green fields were the provinces of Ireland, and the song said:
  Each one was a jewel.
  'Till strangers came,
  and tried to take them from me.
  The song was republican; the strangers were Unionists. In 1926, the aspiration of people in Ireland was to drive the Unionists out and have a Catholic country for a Catholic people. Equally, there was a strong desire on the Unionist side of the border to erect a type of Berlin wall to ensure the continuance of a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Those attitudes of mutual hostility did not stop in 1926, 1936, 1956 or 1996. Deeply peaceful people such as my Uncle Tom, who was still cutting hair at 95—
  240
  he had some customers, although he was not much good for me—still felt that Unionists were strangers who had tried to take something and should not be accommodated.
  I have heard a lot of talk about the word "royal", but nobody in southern Ireland cares about it because it poses no threat to nationalists. However, in Northern Ireland it is considered by nationalists to be a symbol of their crushing defeat, as is the word "Ulster". Historically, Ulster was one of the four green fields and had nine counties, so the nationalist side viewed its incorporation in the RUC's title as triumphalist: "We can even redefine the historic provinces of Ireland if we feel like it. We can redefine who has a vote in the new Ulster and who has not. The old Ulster would have contained too many Catholics."
  History is often held too deeply in Ireland. People relive it instead of using it to establish a heritage that they can cherish and from which they can work to recognise other people's concerns in a way that the old Irish debate never did. My uncle's generation was wrong to think that Unionists were strangers; they of course had every right to be regarded as British and Irish. Equally, those in the new Ulster who had absolutely no time for those old people did not understand what caused their hostility to the embodiments of what they regarded as the British conquest.
  Many members of my family were serving police officers. Several joined the Garda Siochana, but they would not have joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Alas, those in the older generation communicated that feeling to later generations; they had no time for the RUC, which they regarded as imposing illegitimate and unjust law. However, that is not our analysis, because our analysis is that it is possible to achieve an inclusive Northern Ireland. A fundamental prerequisite to that is an inclusive Northern Ireland police force.
  The Select Committee did not call for the retention of the title "Royal Ulster Constabulary", but in 1998 we were willing to live with that as the first stage of the move to the inclusive new police force. However, at the last minute, there was a division over flags. Nothing much changes. The instruments of history cannot be presented to us again and again.
  Patten was right to say that we must seek a fresh start and a new beginning for an inclusive police force in Northern Ireland that everyone in that community will own. I sincerely hope that those who want to pull a little history into our debate recognise the dangers of reactions against that beginning and accept that we should work with Patten's ideas in this important Bill.
  War is made in the minds of men and women. We have moved so far that the previous generation's attitude to war has become less prevalent in the new Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that the next generation in that country will see the real benefits of legislation such as the Bill.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. William Thompson: As we approach the end of our debate, we have covered much in relation to the police of Northern Ireland and the Bill. I have the advantage of sitting on this side of the House. I come from Northern Ireland and have lived there all my life. I live in a predominantly nationalist area and represent a pr dominantly nationalist constituency. Indeed, for the past 30 years, I have conducted a business the majority of whose customers are Roman Catholics and

  241
  nationalists. Unlike some others, I can therefore speak with experience of the real situation in Northern Ireland. I sometimes think that it is presumptuous of people to lecture me on what is best for Northern Ireland.
  We have been here before. In the early 1970s, the Hunt commission recommended great changes to the RUC. It wanted their guns to be taken away, said that they were to act like ordinary English bobbies, and so on. At least Hunt had some sense, as he recognised that a change in the RUC's name would offend more than it would appease. Nothing much has changed since then.
  We have sat here many times as various Governments recommended wonderful changes to bring utopia to Northern Ireland, despite the opposition of the majority of those Members of Parliament who come from there. It seems that everyone's views are recognised, except those of the majority of Northern Ireland's elected Members, whose opinions—whatever people say—are ignored and overridden.
  I have been associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary for many years and am proud of its members and their sacrifices. Unfortunately, I have sometimes had to walk behind the coffin at their funerals, after policemen have been murdered by the IRA. Close to my home are many graveyards in which there are policemen murdered by the IRA. In my experience, I have never found any great antipathy in the nationalist community to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Had the SDLP asked the nationalist community to support and join the Royal Ulster Constabulary, there would be many more Roman Catholics in the RUC today.
  There are two basic political reasons why Roman Catholics did not join the RUC. The nationalist community would not look kindly on them if they did so, especially when the nationalist political party was opposed to that. In addition, Catholics who joined the RUC were subject to intimidation, and many were unable ever to come home again. That is why there are so few Roman Catholics in the RUC. However, if they had more support from their political leaders, plenty of them would join. Many young people would be delighted to join because it is a good, well-paid job, and they could rest assured that they would be rushed to the top.
  Once again, a name change is recommended. The IRA and Sinn Fein hate the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and we have listened to Bairbre de Brun's remarks about it. They are determined to destroy it, as they destroyed they Specials, the Ulster Defence Regiment and other organisations, and now they have the opportunity to do so because they have the Secretary of State over a barrel. The success of the Bill's recommendation that nationalists join the RUC depends on the SDLP and on Sinn Fein. However, Sinn Fein says that it will not make that recommendation unless it gets all the changes recommended by Patten. Even then, it will not recommend that nationalists join the future police service of Northern Ireland.
  I would be surprised if Sinn Fein ever made that recommendation because, irrespective of the changes to the name or the service, one thing that will not change is that it represents the British Government in Northern Ireland. It will therefore be difficult, if not impossible, for Sinn Fein ever to recommend that nationalists or republicans join the new police service.
  The RUC will be destroyed, and even when we have the wonderful, utopian new police force, we will still find that Roman Catholics will not join. All that will be gained
  242
  is that the republican movement will have won another propaganda victory against the Unionist and British people of Northern Ireland.
  Unionists do not object to changes to the police that are reasonable and come about through the improving security situation. We object to the fact that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has served Ulster so well and been recognised by the presentation of the George Cross, will get a slap in the face. It will be done away with and replaced by a so-called police service, when there is no guarantee that any more Roman Catholics will join it, hut Sinn Fein-IRA will have claimed another propaganda victory.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: Throughout this process, the Government's task is to hold together the coalition which supported the Good Friday agreement and wants it to be implemented. There are Members who did not support the agreement—who honestly did not support it—and who will never support any legislation that stems from it. The problem with the Bill is that it has generated such strength of feeling, indeed anger, among those committed to the implementation of the agreement.
  Many of us feel that the Bill undermines the spirit and, indeed, the letter of Patten. We wanted a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland, and that will not be achieved by a Bill that proposes a simple limited reformulation of the RUC. We want the Patten principles to be integral to the Bill. Depoliticising must be the key to the new beginning, so that all can participate in the new arrangements for policing in the six counties. That will result from the creation of real accountability, a genuine community partnership, a clearing out of the partisan symbolism of the past, and a commitment to attaining a critical mass of Catholic/nationalist representation in the police service at every level.
  So far, certain general attitudes have been displayed in the debate. It has also given us an opportunity to specify the bottom lines that should be addressed if the Bill is to be supportable. As it should form the new constitution of the police service, it ought to address the question of the name, the flags and the emblems. The bottom line for many, however, will be that the Secretary of State's power should prescribe a new emblem and new symbols that are free of any association with either the British or the Irish state. The regulation of emblem and flag by the Secretary of State should be based on consultation, and achieving consensus with the policing board, the Chief Constable, and human rights organisations in the community generally.
  Parts I and VI relate to the policing board. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of the need to strengthen its powers. Those parts of the Bill should encapsulate the Patten principles of accountability and transparency, but the board's powers are curtailed throughout by the Secretary of State. For instance, the board should be required to meet in public. It should have the power to draw up education and training strategies, working with the police service, human rights experts and the community. The Secretary of State's power to halt a policing board inquiry on grounds other than those set out by Patten should, in my view, be withdrawn from the Bill.

  243
  Patten said that the
  presumption should be that everything should be available for public scrutiny
  unless it was
  in the public interest—not the police interest—to hold it back.
  Clause 56(4) enables the Secretary of State to halt an inquiry if it is not
  in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of the police force.
  That flies in the face of the principles of the Patten proposals. There should be no obstacle to the board's ability to initiate inquiries.
  Inquiries should be in line with the Patten principles, in that they should be held in public. The time limits on inquiries and non-publication of reports are against the spirit of Patten. Appointments to the board should be based on the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult, but there should be a time limit on consultation—three months, for example. The first chair and the vice-chair should be elected by the board itself, subject to the agreement of the First and Deputy First Ministers of the Assembly.
  I want to say something about district and community policing arrangements. The Bill establishes arrangements for community involvement in policing and for local accountability, but again it fails to live up to the Patten proposals. We should set time scales for the establishment of district partnerships. I want clarification in the Bill of the provision for Belfast sub-groups, which has been discussed before. I also regret the fact that the 3p levy is not included, because it could have funded local policing initiatives.
  The district partnerships should meet in public, and members of the public should be able to question their members, including local commanders. District commanders will play a pivotal role in the whole exercise, and should therefore be appointed by the chief constable, but there should be consultation with the board. Because they will play such a pivotal role in the preparation of the local policing plan, they should be responsible for consulting on it with partnerships and with the whole community. The councils that appoint independent members should be transparent in their actions and should base appointments on consultation with the local community.
  Part III deals with policing objectives and codes of practice. It gives the Secretary of State power to determine and revise the objectives of the policing service. I consider that that should require the approval of the policing board. The policing plan should be published in full.
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to determine changes in the codes of practice. Exercise of that power should be based on full consultation, not only—of course—with the Chief Constable, but with the policing board and the community. All codes should be published in full.
  In part VI—on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the police service—overall control is again placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. I propose that the function of the board and of the Chief Constable should be overseen by the oversight commissioner. The board should be presented with the task of managing, implementing and monitoring change
  244
  under the oversight commissioner's direct supervision. Change should be decided not by the Secretary of State or by the RUC, but by the policing board itself, working with the oversight commissioner.
  In this period of change, policing practice must be viewed critically, and we must ensure that it is open, transparent and in line with the spirit of Patten. The code of ethics is, therefore, critical. Today, we have heard criticism from both sides of the House that we have not seen the code's detail in sufficient time. Many hon. Members believe that the code should be, as Patten suggested, included in the Bill.
  All officers should operate in line with the central duty imposed by, for example, the United Nations code on conduct of law enforcement, which entails respect for and protection of human dignity and maintenance of the human rights of all people.
  The oath is critical. It will, in a time of new beginnings, give confidence in policing practice to all. The oath should be applied to all officers and based on the protection and upholding of fundamental human rights and on equal respect for all individuals and their traditions and beliefs.
  The special quota arrangements in recruitment are important, but they will require time to be effective. Therefore, the 10-year review period should be maintained and the proposal for a three-year period rejected. There should be a register of all interests and of membership of all organisations for members of the new police service.
  The police ombudsman will play a crucial role in establishing confidence in the new service. Therefore, there should be no time limits on the ombudsman's ability to initiate inquiries. The ombudsman's powers of investigation should be stated in the Bill. Similarly, the oversight commissioner should be given statutory duties and powers in the Bill.
  I believe that, in its current form, the Bill should be sent back, but I accept that we shall not have the opportunity today to vote on that matter. The onus is therefore now on the Committee to redraft the Bill in detail, so that it is in line with the original Patten proposals and inspires the confidence of all the communities.
  I respect the views that have been stated today by those who live in and represent the six counties of Northern Ireland. However, policing of the six counties is critical to us all, because it is part of the peace process itself. I believe that the Bill's proposals are not in line with the overall Good Friday agreement, undermine confidence in the agreement itself and threaten some of the ways forward that we envisaged when people signed up to the agreement. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister say in his reply that the Bill will be thoroughly reviewed in Committee.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: There is much in the Bill to be commended. As many hon. Members have already said, there is much in the Bill that is common ground. Clearly, the police service in Northern Ireland—or whatever its name may be—can do with reform. We have a common aim and ambition: to transform it into something very different from what it is today—

  245
  ultimately, we hope, into an unarmed police force doing exactly the same type of job as other police forces do elsewhere within these islands.
  The problem, however, has been inherent ever since the process was embarked upon, and it was quite apparent when the Patten report was published last autumn. As I realised at that time, when I attended a British-Irish conference, the timing of the process has got completely out of kilter. That fact cannot be escaped. The principles established in the Belfast agreement were intended to produce a set of circumstances by which we would move to establishing political structures, there would be decommissioning and the community as a whole could start looking carefully at the way in which policing was done. Instead of which, we find ourselves considering the Bill at a time when the Assembly and the Executive are only totteringly back on their feet, and when the issue of decommissioning remains up in the air, a sword of Damocles that is hanging over the peace process.
  It is already apparent from the way in which the Belfast agreement has been interpreted that there are substantial areas of disagreement in its interpretation which go to its very root. I think that these are reflected in some of the problems we have with policing. In a nutshell—as there is so little time to develop these matters—I simply say that it is apparent from comments made, for example, by members of Sinn Fein—which I heard when in Northern Ireland—that there are diametrically different views on whether the Belfast agreement is setting up a structure where United Kingdom sovereignty remains but tremendous institutional changes are implemented to create harmony and participation by all people, with the prospect of reunification if a majority ever wants it in future, or whether we are proceeding through a process of cantonisation and condominium where individual communities can set up themselves and their rights against others and insist on structures which suit them and not the community as a whole.
  I regret that that has been fostered in part by people who should know better, such as the Foreign Minister of Ireland in his ill-considered and ill-judged comments. It is a strand that runs through the way in which the agreement has been interpreted in republican circles. It is not surprising if that strikes at the root of the confidence that is required to carry out the sort of changes in policing that the Secretary of State has put forward, and which in many ways appear perfectly reasonable—and might appear even more reasonable if the right climate existed for their implementation within the community. It is with that in mind that I must approach how I vote or whether I abstain this evening. I will certainly vote on the Opposition amendment.
  Let us consider one or two of the issues that are raised. There is the question of the boards and the district boards. Having served on the Lambeth police community consultative group, I know the value of engaging the police with a community that may have built-in hostility to it. It is a creative process, as long as there is a willingness for dialogue and not an attempt to undermine one side or the other.
  My anxiety about aspects of the Bill is that they provide fertile ground for precise undermining—the cantonisation. I well remember that when we discussed these issues at British-Irish conferences two years ago, it was suggested at one stage that there should be a two-tier police service with a sort of reserve gendarmerie to deal with one aspect,
  246
  with locally based community police services to deal with others. I thought that that would be highly undesirable for all concerned. There is real anxiety that the structures that we shall set up will contribute to endless and rancorous debate, as they are used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the police into the further process of cantonisation, which is contrary to the spirit of the Belfast agreement.
  These are matters that we can consider in Committee, and I hope that we shall be able to do something with them. I have an open mind on some aspects, but I have real reservations about whether the proposals will create the clarity that is desired and wanted to make the proposed legislation work in practice.
  The same considerations apply to all the other issues that seem to concern us so endlessly. In a funny way, and perhaps iconoclastically, I am not sure whether I mind very much what the oath is. Equally, I am not sure that I very much mind what the symbols may be. However, we cannot get away from the fact that as we are dealing with a part of the United Kingdom, all judicial offices—the Secretary of State acknowledged this when he was dealing with the courts—and the police service are Crown appointments. A constable holds an office under the Crown. To perform elliptical somersaults to get away from the fact that all power derives from the Crown within the United Kingdom—and as long as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom we should seek to make that the impartial mechanism by which the legal system and the police service is provided—is to venture on to difficult ground from which we shall never succeed in extracting ourselves.
  Therefore, I say to those on the Treasury Bench that I am happy to look at all sorts of possible solutions, but they cannot fudge the reality. If they try to fudge the reality, they are contributing to the cantonisation and condominium procedure, which the Belfast agreement does not seek to do, but which the enemies of the agreement—or at least the cherry-pickers of the agreement—want. It is small wonder that Ulster Unionists feel strongly about the issue when they see what appears in many ways to be a fairly clear document being muddled in that fashion.
  As for the quotas, I confess that I am amazed. I do not see how putting quotas in the form in which they appear in the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights—forget about European legislation. I am 100 million times in favour of increasing Roman Catholic representation within the police service in Northern Ireland, whatever name it may have. I could not care less what figure it reaches. If it reaches 60 per cent. or 70 per cent., I will sleep quietly in my bed at night, but to enshrine a 50:50 split in the system seems to be questionable. An aspiration that it should reflect properly the constituent make-up of the community from which it is drawn seems totally unexceptionable, but the 50:50 quota raises far more problems than it will solve.
  I hope that, later in the passage of the Bill, I may be able to contribute further. As I say, the Government are to be commended. They have tried to work their way through a minefield. I am sorry that that has come about in the way in which it has. The fault lies with those who have prevented the Belfast agreement from getting up and running to the point where we could have some clarity of discussion on the future of the police, but we must live in

  247
  the real world. We must be careful of listening to too many siren songs about a few more somersaults or convolutions solving the problem.
  The past year has shown that it is when the Secretary of State is prepared to express himself clearly that we make progress. It was regrettable that he had to come along and to start telling us all about flags. The fact that we had to spend an evening dealing with flags reflects rather badly on the way in which the whole process has been developing, but at least we cut through that.
  We need to be willing to cut through some of this, too. Otherwise, we will get ourselves into an increasingly complex situation, where we do not provide the sort of police service that I am convinced the majority of people in Northern Ireland want.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Second Reading debates with 10-minute limits on Back-Bench speeches seem to pose minor problems in the management of the business of the House. I rather thought that I would rise to my feet at about half past the hour and that I should preface my remarks by mentioning the limited time available to me. In fact, I am under no such handicap. There is a fair open space of time ahead of me.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes.
  Mr. McNamara: Seven minutes?
  Mr. Taylor: That was a disappointment.
  I am one of those Englishmen who is particularly fond of the Province of Northern Ireland—after all, it is part of my country. I agree that it seems a desperate shame that such nice people can find a gruesome divide to quarrel across. I used to wonder whether I could be part of the generation that helped to solve it. I thought to myself as a young man that I might never find the answer, but that I owed it to myself at least to try to understand the question.
  I have spent a lot of my adult life trying to understand the question. Northern Ireland is such a beautiful and promising country that does so many things so extraordinarily well and is, in its own way, eminently capable of enjoying itself. It has so much to offer to tourists. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow Secretary of State, will attest to the fact that some of the finest golf courses in the world are in Northern Ireland. It would be nice if people were not made nervous about playing on those beautiful golf courses and fishing in the beautiful streams of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mallon: The names of at least two of those golf courses begin with the word "Royal". I invite anyone to visit them and play.
  Will the hon. Gentleman help us all out? For some time I have been on a chase that has become a personal odyssey. I have tried everybody else and failed, so can
  248
  the hon. Gentleman tell us, from his great depth of experience of parliamentary legislation, what the title deeds of a Bill are?
  Mr. Taylor: As a lawyer, that expression is technically known to me as gobbledegook. I studied the law as a young man and practised it for 22 years. I know what a Bill is, I know what an Act of Parliament is and I know what title deeds to real property are, but I have no idea what the title deeds to a Bill are.
  Incidentally, of the two golf courses in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—Royal County Down and Royal Portrush—
  Mr. Mallon: They are not in my constituency.
  Mr. Taylor: This may be a minor diversion and the House may not wish to know it, but I am playing Portrush in October.
  The hon. Gentleman may be trying to explore another area that is worthy of exploration. I have seldom known a Bill with so many collaterals to it—so many codes of practice that arc not in the Bill and so many reserve powers for the Secretary of State. It will be difficult to handle the Bill in Committee, because we will be asked to accept in good faith a lot of closed and inaccessible items. That can sometimes be asking a lot on such important issues.
  I shall start my remarks proper by endorsing the Conservative reasoned amendment, which defines our dissatisfaction wrath the Bill because it fails to sustain the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross in the way that we would like, and leaves the way open for representatives of paramilitaries and even persons convicted of terrorist offences to serve on the policing board and district policing partnerships, and because all that will happen without even a start having been made on decommissioning.
  I do not embrace all of the Patten report, but it is irrelevant to dispute whether the Bill lives up to that report, because Patten set out to address the question of policing on the far side of the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. We are not in that position, because one aspect of the Belfast agreement has not been implemented—many would say not even in the slightest degree.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The terms of reference for the Patten report were to provide a framework for the policing of a peaceful Northern Ireland on the completion of all aspects of the Belfast agreement. As we do not yet have that, is not the Bill in many respects premature?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes that point fairly, and I concur; in short, he is right.
  Mr. McNamara: I have the terms of reference of the Independent
  Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland before me, and they contain none of the caveats mentioned by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien).
  Mr. Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend can resolve that dispute. As far as I am concerned, my hon. Friend is correct. The ethos of Patten is that it is a formulation for policing in Northern Ireland on the far

  249
  side of the fulfilment of the Belfast agreement. That is why I say that my hon. Friend is correct. Patten predicated peace as a premise to new policing, and we are not there.
  Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a solution to the policing difficulties should be a causal factor in the development of peace rather than something that comes only after peace is firmly established?
  Mr. Taylor: All the elements are interdependent, and we are entitled to see progress with all of them.
  On a separate and lighter note—there are not many lighter notes in Northern Ireland politics—as an Englishman who attends his own local police consultative committee whenever he can, I was surprised by the number of layers of monitoring and consultation provided in the Bill. There are the policing board, district policing partnerships, community committees and police liaison committees, to name but four.
  I was reminded of my friend Barry Field—the former Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight—who said that given the number of parish and district councils on the island as well as the county council, he sometimes felt that almost everybody on the island was a councillor of one kind or another. Here it may be that anyone in Northern Ireland who is not a police consultee might feel a sense of exclusion.
  That may be a virtuous tendency, and of course, it is far better than too little consultation. However, as Patten predicts a reduction in police numbers in Northern Ireland, one feels entitled to ask whether a serious and realistic assessment has been made of the amount of resources and police time that will be absorbed in those processes over and above crime fighting and enforcement of the law.
  As for the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a survey of how Ulster people see themselves was conducted by the Belfast Telegraph in April this year. It found not merely that 93 per cent. of Protestants had no objection to the RUC identity and name, but that 61 per cent. of Catholics had no such object on either. Such police satisfaction figures are almost unknown elsewhere in the civilised world.
  I have been struck tonight by the extent to which the Bill is friendless in those parts of the House where support might have been thought to be most significant. A near-friendless Bill is setting out to make a nearly gratuitous change of name.
  Dr. Godman: It has been suggested that the proposed title—the Northern Ireland Police Service—is, to put it mildly, somewhat inane. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the suggestion that the new title should be the Northern Ireland Constabulary?
  Mr. Taylor: I find more attractive the suggestion made earlier in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, who felt that the names Northern Ireland Police Service and Royal Ulster Constabulary should both find their way into the name of the service. If they were combined, the name might be clumsy, but at least it might avoid offending either of the parties.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) suggests the
  250
  name the Northern Ireland Constabulary, but would the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) object to the Royal Northern Ireland Police Service?
  Mr. Taylor: I have reached the point of asking for answers on a postcard, please. I am not sure that I can handle all the various suggestions that have been made, but I am a loyal proponent of the name offered by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Mallon: The suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is interesting, except that when that name is shortened, people will say, "I was nicked by the NICs."
  Mr. Taylor: I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman on that, except to say that when I was at the Lord Chancellor's Department, the NICS was the Northern Ireland Court Service. There are too many initials and acronyms these days. DPP now stands for district policing partnerships, but I always thought it was the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. Pound: In your personal experience?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, of course it was my personal experience. We have a logjam of acronyms. By the way, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made an exceptionally good speech, which was passionate and full of great eloquence and oratory. I did not agree with any of it.
  Mr. McNamara: You did not understand it.
  Mr. Taylor: Do you know, I think I did.
  The first time I ever went to Northern Ireland was in the 1960s when I was in my mid-20s, having been rather surprisingly selected to play golf for the English solicitors against the Northern Ireland solicitors. When we met our hosts—their hospitality was legendary—introductions were made and the usual get-to-know-you small talk ensued. I was asked about my home club—the golf club of which I was a member. I replied that I was a member of North Warwickshire golf club. My host asked me whether it was a Protestant club or a Catholic club. That was my first, sharp realisation that I was in a part of my own country, but one with a completely different culture.
  The last time I was in Northern Ireland, earlier this year, I travelled up the Shankill road and down the Falls road, and passed uncompromising political slogans and a police station fortified as I had never seen before. I regret to say that we have some way to go towards peace. This is a Bill for policing in peace, and that is the mismatch and the flaw in it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said, I cannot see how an Act that ultimately satisfies no one will aid the Secretary of State in his efforts to advance the peace process.
  Mr. Öpik: Am I right to assume from the reasoned amendment that the hon. Gentleman and his party cannot think of one person who has been convicted of terrorist offences, on either side of the sectarian divide, who would

  251
  be able to make a meaningful and positive contribution to either the policing board or one of the district policing partnerships?
  Mr. Taylor: I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman the name of a convicted criminal who would be able to serve helpfully, but I do not have an encyclopaedic list of names. I can answer him only in principle, not in particular. My answer in principle is, "No, I can't think of one."
  This has been a tense and sometimes awkward debate. Many hon. Members have contributed, in a series of exchanges that could hardly be called consensual. I have not heard many satisfied voices from any quarter—in fact, I have seldom heard so little satisfaction in a Second Reading debate.
  The Opposition are not satisfied either. We cannot support the motion to give the Bill a Second Reading, and I urge my colleagues and others to support the reasoned amendment.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): This has been an informative debate. There is no question but that the future and past of policing in Northern Ireland provokes intense and strong views on all sides of the argument. To some—although not to many Members of this House, I must say—the RUC is the embodiment of all that is wrong in Northern Ireland, and the root of many of the deep problems facing people there. I believe that that is palpable nonsense.
  Others believe that the RUC can do no wrong, that it should not be modernised or changed, and that it should not be subject to critical comment. That is equally palpable nonsense. The Good Friday agreement and the independent commission under Chris Patten occupied the large middle between the two irreconcilable extremes, and set out to define a new way forward for policing in Northern Ireland. In the words of the Good Friday agreement, the proposal
  provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole.
  The Bill makes it clear that the Government intend to deliver on that objective, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks.
  The matter does not end there. The Bill is large and complex, and it is likely to be subject to fine tuning and amendment under the detailed scrutiny that it will receive in Standing Committee. My right hon. Friend and I have been involved in detailed discussions with the relevant parties since the Bill was published. All manner of views have been expressed, and I believe that the process of clarification has been helpful.
  As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the Bill will be subject to possible amendment, but I want to make it clear that, as it stands, it is faithful to the objectives of the Good Friday agreement and to the recommendations of the Patten commission. The Bill provides a comprehensive framework to achieve a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.
  252
  I turn now to the detail of the debate, which centred on a number of key issues at the heart of the Bill. However, I shall deal first with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). As I understand it, the import of the reasoned amendment is that the Conservative pasty opposes elected members who
  have been convicted of schedule offences becoming members of the policing board. Given that the new political settlement depends on inclusivity, which is the purpose and driving ethos of the Good Friday agreement, that appears a rather strange view to adopt.
  As an extension of the point of view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, it could be argued that he would be equally opposed to the same elected members serving as Ministers in the devolved Administration.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: We are.
  Mr. Ingram: I understand that some hon. Members take that view, but I want to know whether it is the opinion of the right hon. Member for Bracknell. He should make himself clear on this point. If that is the logic of what he said, the next logical development is to assume that he is against the restoration of the Executive. Why should Ministers who are in charge of many billions of pounds of taxpayers' money have only a minority voice on a regulatory policing body?
  Mr. MacKay: I am happy to clarify that point for the Minister. The Opposition straightforwardly believe that it is totally and utterly wrong to have people sitting on policing boards and taking part in police district partnerships who are convicted terrorists when there is still a terrorist threat. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, it is very sad for this country that he should be a Minister.
  Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. I am asking him to put forward his point of view logically. If that is his point of view, and if he supports the Good Friday agreement, there is an inherent contradiction in that. If he is saying that Sinn Fein should not be allowed to run Northern Ireland or be part of the Administration that runs Northern Ireland, he should have strongly resisted the restoration of the Assembly. That would clearly have been detrimental to the continuing development of the peace settlement that we are all seeking to achieve.
  Mr. MacKay: This is very simple to answer. I should have thought that even the Minister could have followed this logic. Under the Belfast agreement, which we support, it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide who their Ministers will be by whom they elect to the Assembly. We have always accepted that a sufficient number of Sinn Fein members were elected to the Assembly to entitle two of them to become Ministers, under the d'Hondt formula. That seems straightforward. Nothing in the Belfast agreement says that they are elected by the people to be part of a police authority. As I said earlier, having convicted terrorist criminals on police boards or district police partnerships is wrong, and I am amazed that the Minister cannot see it.
  Mr. Ingram: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has never been a Northern Ireland Minister, although he

  253
  served previous distinguished Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland for an extensive period. With the new devolved settlement, there will be an interface between myself as security Minister and devolved Ministers, of the type that he suggests. We will be discussing issues that may have a policing interest, such as the curtailment of drug use, and crimes on the street involving paedophiles and sex offenders. There are many other such areas. How would he resolve that anomaly? Should I not speak to those Ministers?
  There are many weaknesses in the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to overstate the point—
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ingram: I will deal the hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution later in my summing up—I am conscious of the time available. I want to deal with a range of points, but I make that request based on logic, to the right hon. Gentleman. He has to square the circle in some way.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) made a strong plea about the name of the RUC and the pride that it engenders. I am sure that he accepts that the Secretary of State made clear his endorsement of that view, not just in what he said this evening but in every other contribution that he has made. The Bill also reflects that in a number of ways. It seems to me that nothing can diminish the proud achievements and sacrifices of the RUC. But nothing stands still. Let me explain what I mean by that.
  We are now 60 years on from Dunkirk. My Uncle Jim, as a British soldier, escaped north of Dunkirk as part of the 51st Division. He fought in north Africa and lost his brother Harry in the line. He fought in the Italian campaign. He was there in the early days of Normandy. He fought through France and Germany, and was in Luneberg Heath when peace was signed in 1945. He was not unique. Many tens of thousands co British soldiers could recount many other brave examples. He was a proud soldier, and he was proud of his regiment, the Seaforth Highlanders. That regiment no longer exists. Did that take away his pride? No, it did not. Did it diminish his contribution? No, it did not. Did it diminish the sacrifice made by my family and many tens of thousands of other families during the second world war, whose regiments have equally been disbanded and amalgamated? No, it did not. That pride and those sacrifices live on in their hearts and heads, and in the traditions of their families.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister gave way?
  Mr. Ingram: I will come to the hon. and learned Gentleman later in my speech.
  We are not doing what previous Governments have done to British regiments. The name of the RUC will be reflected fully in the Bill. It will be honoured in so many meaningful ways, not least in the RUC George Cross Foundation.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has just walked into the debate.
  Dr. Lewis: I have been here for half an hour.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way. That should be enough for the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman should not argue with me.
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mr. Ingram: Will hon. Members let me develop my case? The hon. Gentleman, too, has hardly been in the Chamber during the debate. He was here at the beginning, disappeared for hours and has come back to try to be a clever lawyer. I shall restate the point that I was making in response to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and other hon. Members.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he believes that the sensible way forward is to provide a legal description in the Bill that incorporates the RUC—in effect, he said, in the title deeds of the new service—making it clear that disbandment is not taking place, while introducing a new name, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That name will be used for all working and operational purposes.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ingram: I was about to turn to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Ingram: Yes.
  Hon. Members: Ah.
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been trying to intervene all day. As a matter of fact, I have been trying to do so for more than a month.
  Will the Minister inform us of what the title deeds of the Bill are?
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what the Secretary of State said. That is why I referred to it. He said, in effect, the title deeds. That was a careful choice of words. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are meaningless."] We can have hilarity or a serious debate.
  I regret that the hon. Gentleman's speech was cut short, although I understand and accept the 10-minute limit. I also regret his assessment of the way the Government approached the Patten report. I do not accept his point of view. As he knows, both my right hon. Friend and I have spent many hours in close discussion with him and with members of his and other parties. We have tried to deal with their concerns. We shall continue such detailed examination in Committee, where I know his party's view will be strongly represented.
  The hon. Gentleman made a telling intervention on the right hon. Member for Bracknell and pointed out the strength of feeling in large parts of the Catholic community as to the need for a change in policing. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that people who do not

  255
  live in Northern Ireland should not express paternalistic views or comments. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman pay careful heed to those words.
  Mr. MacKay: The Minister does not live in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Ingram: That is true, but I spend a considerable amount of time there—devoting much energy and effort, on behalf of the British Government, to helping people in Northern Ireland to find a way forward. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's paternalistic approach might not be helpful in finding a way forward.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) highlighted several detailed concerns—rightly pointing out that his party had identified 44 matters. He referred particularly to powers of inquiry and to the code of ethics. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Bill might not be perfect, but that we would consider constructive changes. However, they must be aimed at creating a modem, efficient, representative and acceptable police service. I know that the hon. Gentleman will share that sentiment.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the inquiry power of the policing board. My right hon. Friend said that we want to strike the right balance; we are prepared to reconsider that balance and how better to refine and define it. The hon. Gentleman said that the code of ethics should apply to all officers—existing and new. That is exactly what the Bill says. Clause 30(4) states:
  In carrying out their functions the members of the police force shall have regard to the code of ethics under section 48.
  I hope that deals with the points that he raised.
  I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for his considered response to the Bill. I recognise the strong views that he has about key elements of the Bill and about 50:50 representation, not least on gender and race issues. He also expressed his view on who should and should not be entitled to serve on the policing board and the district policing partnerships. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) pointed out, those detailed issues are worthy of consideration in Committee.
  Many of the issues that we have considered in this debate will be helped by the implementation plan, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, was published in Belfast. The plan is now available in the Vote Office for hon. Members to consider and to develop their understanding of the Bill.
  On the point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made about 50:50 representation, we clearly have to take European Union directives into account, comply with them and, if it is appropriate, we may have to seek derogation. On the make-up of the board and the district policing partnerships, it is important that we do not take action that works against the grain of the new inclusive approach on which the future of Northern Ireland depends.
  As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said elsewhere, the fact that someone
  256
  has a past does not mean that he cannot have a future. That must be the right approach, and I know that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire accepts that. I hope that other hon. Members will, on reflection, consider that point. The Bill is right to contain effective safeguards as to who can and who cannot serve on the bodies in an independent capacity. It does that and, even though others may take a view on that, the Bill makes clear the process that will be involved.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the Chief Constable should be required to comply with the annual policing plan. He said that he wanted the Government to go beyond Patten's recommendation and that, therefore, the board's powers should be increased under the Bill. At present, the Police Authority issues an annual plan and the Chief Constable issues a strategic plan. He then has to pay regard to the annual plan. Under the Bill, the policing board will issue both the strategic and the annual elements in a single plan and again the Chief Constable will have to have regard to that. To go further than that would infringe his operational independence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to that point.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), as usual, made robust arguments in support of his case. I could take issue with him on a number of detailed points, but I look forward to our debates in Committee. I do not for one minute doubt his sincerity and integrity; nor do I criticise the determination that he has shown in promoting his views and those of his community.
  I recognise the role of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) as a former Northern Ireland Minister. He called for the Secretary of Stale to be radical, but it is bit difficult to accept such a suggestion from a member of the previous Conservative Administration. Anything they did was clearly of a damaging nature. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman called for a loosening of the powers of the Secretary of State relative to the policing board. In at least five significant areas, the Secretary of State will give powers to the policing board that do not apply to the existing Police Authority. That may or may not be radical.
  I understood that I was to be given much more time to sum up. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) rightly used up the time available to him, but unfortunately I am not able to deal with all the detailed issues. I look forward to their being considered in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I instruct the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 142, Noes 342.

  Division No. 217]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Amess, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Beggs, Roy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Bercow, John

  Brady, Graham

  257

  Brazier, Julian

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Burns, Simon

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Clappison, James

  Maginnis, Ken

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Maples, John

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Norman, Arche

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Paice, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prior, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gamier, Edward

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gibb Nick

  Roe, Mrs Mar on (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Green Damian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Simpson Keith, (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian Esher & Walton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor John M (Solihull)

  Horam, John

  Thompson, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Viggers, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Walker Cecil

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wells, Bowen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Luff, Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger Nick

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ashton Joe

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton Ms Candy

  Allan, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  258

  Barnes, Harry

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Efford, Clive

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Best, Harold

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Flint, Caroline

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brake, Tom

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Browne, Desmond

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burnett, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gunnell, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Coleman, lain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hume, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  259

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Olner, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Öpik, Lembit

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

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pearson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pendry, Tom

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Perham, Ms Linda

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pope, Greg

  Laxton, Bob

  Pound, Stephen

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Quinn, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lock, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McCabe, Steve

  Rendel, David

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Rowlands, Ted

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruane, Chris

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salter, Martin

  McWalter, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWilliam, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallon, Seamus

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Snort, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Singh Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner Dennis

  Maxtor, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington s)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin

  Soley, Clive

  Moffatt, Laura

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Speller, John

  Moore, Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles>

  Moms, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mountford, Kali

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oaten, Mark

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  260

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Touhig, Don

  Willis, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tyler, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Tynan, Bill

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wyatt, Derek

  Webb, Steve

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. David Jamieson.

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 14.

  Division No. 218]

  [10.18 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burstow, Paul

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Casale, Roger

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caton, Martin

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chaytor, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clapham, Michael

  Banks, Tony

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clelland, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Coleman, Iain

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Best, Harold

  Cotter, Brian

  Betts, Clive

  Cranston, Ross

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Crausby, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvill, Keith

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, John

  Burnett, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  261

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

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

  Doran, Frank

  Dowd, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Efford, Clive

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Lawrence Mrs Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt Tom

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Livsey, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Lock, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McGrady, Ed ie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Gunnel, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hain, Peter

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Mallon, Seamus

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Martlew Eric

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Maxton, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heppell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moore, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hume, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hutton, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Ingram, R Hon Adam

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Organ, Mrs Dana

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  262

  Pearson, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pendry, Tom

  Stevenson, George

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pike, Peter L

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stringer, Graham

  Pond, Chris

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pope, Greg

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pound, Stephen

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Touhig, Don

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Trickett, Jon

  Roche Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooney, Terry

  burner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tyler, Paul

  Roy, Frank

  Tynan, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruane Chris

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ruddock Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  White Brian

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Salter, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Willis Phil

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Winnick, Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winnick, David

  Singh, Marsha

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  wood, Mike

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

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

  Wyatt, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. David Jamieson.

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  NOES

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Thompson, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Walker, Cecil

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. William Ross and Mr. Roy Beggs.

  Robertson, Laurence

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
  POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  Question agreed to.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
  That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet on Tuesday 20th June at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of Social Exclusion in Wales, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Tony Colman be added to the International Development Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Langage Energy Park
  10.30 pm
  Mrs. Linda GilroyI have a petition signed by 5,000 people from my constituency and surrounding constituencies in Devon and Cornwall.
  The Petition of the Residents of Plymouth and the South West
  Declares that we support the development of the Langage Energy Park as it will provide a major boost to the region including much needed jobs, reliable energy supplies and a reduction in energy prices.
  The petitioners therefore ask that the House of Commons
  Urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take steps to grant approval to allow Langage Energy Park to proceed.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Utilities Regulation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10.31 pm
Mr. Hilary Benn: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of fairness in gas and electricity prices. Although I want to speak principally about pre-payment meters, I am equally concerned about the problems that people experience with debt and fuel poverty. Fuel poverty has been defined as the situation experienced by households that must spend 10 per cent. or more of their income to keep their homes adequately warm. There are between 4 million and 5 million such households in England, of which about 1 million have to spend 20 per cent. or more of their income every week on energy.
Let me begin, however, by paying tribute to the steps that the Government have taken to reduce the cost of lighting our homes and keeping them warm. The reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and on the supply and installation of energy-saving measures, the introduction of the winter fuel payment for pensioners and the new home energy efficiency scheme are all examples of practical action that directly addresses the issue of fuel poverty.
This is a Government who have shown that they are serious about doing something, but there is one area in which more action is needed. I am thinking of people with pre-payment meters who are charged more for their gas and electricity than those paying by other means. Because those on low incomes are more likely to have pre-payment meters, the poor are burdened with the highest gas and electricity bills, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of their income. To put it simply, that cannot be right if we want to tackles fuel poverty.
There has been a huge increase in the number of pre-payment meters in recent years. It rose from just under 2 million in 1991 to just over 5 million in 1998. The total extra cost of gas and electricity to pre-payment meter users is now an even bigger problem than it was a decade ago. Part of the reason for the increase has been the use of pre-payment meters to deal with problems of debt. It is quite common for people in arrears to be moved to a pre-payment meter system as a way of clearing that debt, although it is the most expensive way of paying for gas and electricity.
The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has looked at what has happened to prices since 1990. Prices have, of course, fallen for all customers and in the case of all payment methods, but the evidence indicates that
the differential between direct debit and pre-payment meter prices has widened somewhat.
That differential—that extra cost—is significant.
Let us imagine a street with a gas pipe and an electricity cable. Over a year, exactly the same amount of gas and electricity is supplied to the person living at No. 21—who pays bills by direct debit—and to the person living at No. 23, who has a pre-payment meter. However, national figures tell us that the person at No. 23 pays, on average, 20 per cent. mare for gas and 6 per cent. more for electricity than his or her neighbour. To make matters worse, the person at No. 23 is much more likely than the person at No. 21 to be on a low income.

265
How on earth can that be? It is, of course, because the utility companies charge different amounts for their product depending on the customer's payment method. Direct debit enjoys the lowest prices, followed by standard quarterly credit, whereas pre- payment meters face the highest charges.
Is there a justification for that set of circumstances? We are told that supplying a pre-payment it meter customer is more costly than supplying a direct debit one, and there is some truth in that. However, when Ofgem examined the matter in relation to electricity, it found—in a very interesting study—that, although there were some additional costs, there were also savings to the supplier. Its conclusion was that the cost of a pre-payment meter customer
might reasonably be of the same order
as that of a typical quarterly credit customer, yet pre-payment meter customers are charged more.
The aspect of the matter that I find hardest to fathom is that many companies give a special discount to those whom they describe as "prompt payers"—those who settle their bills quickly. I cannot imagine a more prompt payment method than paying for all the gas and electricity that one uses before one has taken even a single therm or kilowatt out of the supply, which is exactly what pre-payment
customers do. However, for the privilege, they are forced to pay the highest prices. The practice is, in the jargon, counter-intuitive, although other people might describe it as a rip-off.
There is an even more fundamental argument about charging people according to what the companies describe as their "customer characteristics". Let us consider the most obvious factor that makes it more costly to supply and service some customers than other customers—the matter of where customers live. Maintaining a supply will be more expensive in a remote rural location than in a town. However, rural customers are not charged more because of that, and one can imagine the outcry if anyone tried to charge them more on that basis.
Why should some customers face a higher charge because of another characteristic—not where they live, but how they choose to pay their bill—particularly when it bears hardest on those who are poorest? It is perfectly possible to cross-subsidise to even out costs when it suits the companies to do so, and that is what should happen in this case.
The other justification sometimes offered by suppliers is to argue that not all pre-payment meter users are people on low incomes. That is also true. However, there are a lot of poor pre-payment meter users. Ofgem, in its own consultation document on pre-payment meters, which it issued last October, said clearly:
pre-payment meter usage is concentrated amongst less well off households.
The facts support that view. The Government estimate that a quarter of households receiving income support pay for their gas by pre-payment meter. A recent MORI poll clearly showed that use of pre-payment increases among lower socio-economic groups, with more than 50 per cent. of one-parent families using pre-payment meters to pay for electricity and 40 per cent. of such families using them for gas. Regardless, that justification is not an argument for doing nothing.
There is one final way in which low-income pre-payment meter customers are disadvantaged, in that the cheapest gas and electricity—for hose paying by
266
direct debit—is denied to those who do not have a bank or building society account. Therefore, once again, it is the poor who lose out.
The British Bankers Association estimates that between 6 and 9 per cent. of the population—3 million people—do not have access to a bank account. The national right to fuel campaign reports that research done for "Competition Monitor" found that 30 per cent. of pre-payment meter users did not have a bank account. It is, of course, an issue not only for the energy companies—it goes to the heart of financial exclusion in our society. However, could we please have action so that no longer are people without bank accounts denied access to the cheapest and easiest way of keeping their homes warm and lit?
I should like to make it clear that I am not opposed to pre-payment meters in principle—far from it. Many consumers find such meters a convenient and controllable way of paying for their gas and electricity, although the meters do not in themselves solve the problem of fuel poverty, as they can still result in self-disconnection when people have literally run out of money. It is clear, however, that the practice of overcharging needs to end. There are many who share that concern, such as the Gas Consumers Council; the national right to fuel campaign; the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which has examined the matter in detail; and the Public Accounts Committee, which has said that it is time that pre-payment meter customers benefited from the liberalised gas market.
So what action is needed? First, we need action by the suppliers, some of which have a better record than others. However, despite competition, pre-payment meter customers are still getting a raw deal. Part of the reason for that is to be found in the impact of competition. Established companies are afraid to even out their collection costs across their own customers for fear that that might result in new entrants to the market cherry-picking their most valuable customers—those who pay by direct debit.
Having said that, British Gas at least charges pre-payment meter users the same as standard quarterly credit customers, and according to the Gas Consumers Council it has the lowest charges for pre-payment meters of any of the gas suppliers. In the light of competition, I wonder why it is that all the other gas suppliers are charging their pre-payment meter customers so much more.
I am aware, of course, of the recent launch by TXU of its StayWarm scheme, which is being trialled in Yorkshire. It is aimed specifically at people on low incomes. In return for a regular agreed payment, the customer can have as much energy as he needs without having to pay anything extra or worry about bills. Let us have more innovation of that sort.
For example, given that customers without bank accounts are made to pay higher prices, why cannot the banks and the utility companies get together jointly to market a product that makes banking available to low-income customers and enables them to pay the lowest prices for their gas and electricity? What about some further innovation in pre-payment meter technology to bring down costs?

267
Secondly, we need action by the regulator. The regulator now has to have regard to the draft statutory social and environmental guidance, which was issued in February. Under the Utilities Bill, he has an explicit duty to
protect the interests of consumers … wherever appropriate …
including
individuals with low incomes.
"Wherever appropriate" has not yet been defined, but I cannot think of a better case than the current overcharging of pre-payment meter users, where the evidence makes it clear to me that competition per se will not deal with the problem. I believe that the time for intervention has arrived.
Ofgem has taken some action in announcing that the price differential for electricity pre-payment meters should he capped at £15 per annum, but why should there be a differential at all? However, the overcharging for gas is much greater. In its recent document on meter liberalisation, Ofgem has proposed that the annual surcharge levied by Transco on suppliers for operating PPMs should increase by 50 per cent., from 10 to £15. Unless that is offset by reductions elsewhere on the Transco charge, that could further increase the price differential and so add to the cost disadvantage that PPM customers already bear.
In preparing for the debate, I learned quickly that the issues of regulation are highly complex. However, I am sure that where there is a will there is a way to sort out this problem. Yorkshire Electricity, for example, with which I have been in correspondence, has suggested that the cost of pre-payment meters could be shared across all suppliers through the introduction of a social levy.
Finally, we need action by Government. An important and significant step has been taken to put the consumer at the heart of regulation through the Utilities Bill. Clauses 68 and 97 give the Secretary of State the power to make an order on price levels in cases where in his opinion members of any group of customers are being treated less favourably than other customers.
That is exactly what is happening, and if Ofgem will not act I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will use the powers that are available to her. In particular, it would be helpful to know how long Ofgem will be given to sort out the matter before my right hon. Friend steps in to introduce a scheme.
In conclusion, this is an issue of fairness. People who are poor should not have to pay more than others to heat and light their homes. I represent many people who work hard to get by on low incomes. In my opinion, we should not tolerate for one moment longer a system which penalises them in practice because they are poor.
10.44 pm
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on securing this debate. I am aware that he has taken a considerable interest in pre-payment meters. He has asked a number of questions and has raised the issue on more than one occasion. I congratulate him also on a well-reasoned and rational speech that contained almost
268
nothing with which I would disagree. He has made the case effectively and eloquently for action to deal with the issues of pre-payment meters.
My hon. Friend is right to associate the issues of pre-payment meters with fuel poverty. Many of those who use pre-payment meters in my constituency and, indeed, in yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do so because they are frightened of the risks of running into debt. They must budget closely for their energy requirements.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that, just because someone uses a pre-payment meter, that does not necessarily mean that they are the fuel poor. Many others do so—for example, those who rent out accommodation to students or as holiday lets—so it is not an accurate assessment just to extrapolate across. However, those of us who represent constituencies with considerable deprivation are well aware of the extent to which pre-payment meters are used by the fuel poor.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, as the Government have taken action to drive down electricity and gas prices, one of the challenges that has arisen is ensuring that those who use pre-payment meters benefit from the competitive pressures that drive down prices in the same way as everyone else. It is another indicator of social exclusion. The Government regard eliminating social exclusion as one of their major tasks. Tackling fuel poverty is an important aspect of that work.
Fuel poverty is about not just energy issues, but housing, health and ensuring, for example, as my hon. Friend has said, that banking facilities are available to those who have never felt able to open a bank account. It is for that reason that I have established and chaired a cross-departmental working group on fuel poverty, which will report in the autumn and which is looking at those issues with a view to ensuring that all the various aspects that contribute to fuel poverty are taken into account.
Fuel poverty is an easy phrase to say, but the reality of it is that people have to prioritise between keeping warm or buying food. Often, it can lead to deaths. There are social costs related to those deaths, but, if we look just at the cost to the most vulnerable members of society, it does not bear thinking about.
The issue of dealing with people on pre-payment meters is initially one for the industry. I have challenged it to take on board the difficulties that people on pre-payment meters have to deal with. Many of the arrangements that are made for those on pre-payment meters are discriminatory. For example, there is the issue of transferability of debt. Often, people who have got into debt are forced on to pre-payment meters. Often, they are running to stand still.
I had one case in my constituency where a woman was wrongly accused of having run up bills of several hundreds of pounds because of a fault in her pre-payment meter, which kept tripping on to the emergency tariff time after time. She could get little redress because she did not have a strong enough voice to secure that redress. I was glad to be able to do something to assist her.
It is important that the industry itself take up the challenge. My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that British Gas has acknowledged that there should not be discrimination towards those on pre-payment meters. At the moment, companies are not allowed to cross-subsidise one group of customers at the expense of another. He is

269
right to point out that, in the Utilities Bill, which is in another place, there is provision for a reserve power on cross-subsidisation.
I will regard it as a failure on the part of industry if those cross-subsidisation powers have to be used. I have challenged the industry to come forward with proposals. The Electricity Association Services Ltd. has set up a taskforce that is looking at issues of fuel poverty, among them the discrimination that is contained within pre-payment meters, but I challenge the chief executives of the energy companies to make it one of their priorities. One of the difficulties that we have traditionally had with fuel poverty is that dealing with it has been the responsibility of junior members of companies who do not have the clout to drive through the changes that are required.
The Government will not hesitate to use the cross-subsidisation powers if the industry fails to do so, but the quickest and most effective way of ensuring that we get rid of the distortions for the most disadvantaged in our society is for the industry to take action.
Companies are beginning to come forward with ways of helping poorer consumers, some of which are very imaginative. For example, just two weeks ago, I launched the TXU scheme that my hon. Friend spoke about. Aimed at those on benefits, it is an imaginative way of trying to ensure that the customer and the company agree an annual price for electricity and gas. It will be interesting to see how that programme works its way through. The fact that I want to associate myself with the programme shows the extent to which the Government are interested in the issue.
The Chancellor's Budget announcement of tax concessions for the affordable warmth scheme is another sign of the extent to which the Government are trying to help the companies to take the necessary action to address issues of fuel poverty. One of my Department's priorities is to ensure that energy bills for most customers come down. Prices have come down over the past five years, but my hon. Friend is right to say that direct debit customers have retained a price advantage throughout that time. The latest figures for 1999 show that average annual bills for pre-payment customers are about £50 higher for gas and £27 higher for electricity than for those paying by direct debit. The difference with customers paying on standard quarterly credit is much less—about £13 for gas and £17 for electricity. It is important to address the differences.
My hon. Friend referred to the regulator and the new structure of regulation that we are introducing in the Utilities Bill. It will ensure that our system of regulation gives precedence to the consumer. The regulator published a social action plan in March that included several measures directed specifically at helping customers using pre-payment meters. Ofgem, the new regulator, will be modifying supply licences to limit the pre-payment meter surcharge to a maximum of £15 for gas and electricity. We hope that the companies will be
270
able to do much better. Ofgem will bring new licence conditions and codes of practice for suppliers, setting out the services that pre-payment customers should expect, including the distances that customers need to travel to recharge their meters and action to rectify faults. People on pre-payment meters often find themselves doubly disadvantaged because action is not taken quickly enough to rectify faults in their meters.
Ofgem will also look at ways of promoting competition to improve meters and services. We are in the 21st century. It should be possible to deliver smart meters that can deal with some of the complex pre-payment issues. Ofgem is supporting research into ways of encouraging pre-payment customers to switch to other payment methods. Other banking institutions can be used. Credit unions are often a useful way of encouraging the disadvantaged into a situation in which they can get the benefits and financial services that the rest of us take for granted.
Ofgem is also supporting research into the extent and significance of self-disconnection and rationing by pre-payment meter consumers. Those are sophisticated phrases to describe people who deprive themselves of light and heat because they cannot afford to take the risk of switching on their cooker or their lights. Ofgem is consulting with the industry about the removal of the right of suppliers to block the move of consumers to cheaper competitors if the consumers have debt—and many pre-payment meter customers have debts.
Notwithstanding those difficulties, there has been an increase in the number of pre-payment meter customers in this country and we must try to understand why. The issue of pre-payment meters is complex and does not relate solely to energy price or fuel poverty. However, the Government, the regulator and the industry have to work together to take a range of steps to address fuel poverty across the board and to ensure that all consumers share in the benefits of the liberalised markets that are driving down energy prices. It is important to ensure that pre-payment meter customers are not disadvantaged. Not all are disadvantaged but, sadly, many of the most vulnerable are.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central on securing the debate, and I hope that those who take decisions in the energy companies read his speech. Certainly it will be required reading for the regulator, because my hon. Friend has made a number of important points that the regulator must look into. However, at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the industry, the regulator and the Government to ensure that the benefits of modern energy markets are shared by all and that we do not have a situation in this day and age where people are frightened to avail themselves of energy and put themselves through great hardship because of that fear.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.30 am
Mr. Ian Stewart: Hon. Members will know that, since 1979, a child who has been severely damaged or disabled by vaccines has been able to claim a one-off vaccine damage payment from the vaccine damage payments unit in Lancaster street, Preston, which is now a branch of the Benefits Agency. The payment scheme covers the common childhood vaccines of diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and tuberculosis. Unlike most other social security benefits, the vaccine damage payment scheme has undergone no revision, upgrading or improvement since 1979. I stress from the outset that children who have been damaged by vaccines were born without impairment or disability. They have suffered what is, thankfully, a rare adverse reaction to a publicly promoted vaccine.
Although I am pleased to debate this issue again, I regret that it is necessary. When I initiated a previous Adjournment debate on this matter 18 months ago, the then Minister promised a Government review of the payment scheme early in the following year. There were two well-attended parliamentary lobbies on the matter in January and November 1999, and the affected families have scheduled another for 28 June. They have also handed in a petition to Downing street.
Representatives of the parents' organisations have met Ministers and there has been intermittent press interest, culminating in a welcome and sustained campaign by The Express to gain justice for vaccine victims. At a parliamentary level, the all-party group has continued to meet regularly and to Tabby Ministers. I thank all Members of Parliament who cannot be here today but who have sent messages expressing their continued support for the work of the all-party group.
I hope to find out when the Government's review of the vaccine damage payment scheme will be published and whether it will be a consultation document or will make positive recommendations. I know that good policy is not made on the hoof, but this one has been around the paddock too many times. I appreciate the complexity of the issue, which requires detailed investigation. I also appreciate the interdepartmental issues that are at the heart of the matter. The Government are rightly promoting vaccination to safeguard our health and to protect our children against disabling and fatal diseases. I support that policy, as do the parents' groups that are campaigning for better financial support for vaccine victims.
The vaccination programme works Some 18 months ago, I outlined the success of the whooping cough vaccine in drastically reducing the number of cases and deaths from the disease in the early 1990s, when the
2WH
vaccine coverage rate reached 94 per cent. of the target population. The meningitis C vaccine is the most recent success. Full figures will not be available until later this year, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has said that anecdotal evidence suggests that between 80 and 95 per cent. of 15 to 17-year-olds have been immunised, with the uptake in babies being even higher. Yet it was reported last month in The Independent on Sunday that the Department of Health fears that a measles epidemic could be triggered by a drop in the immunisation rate to 88 per cent. of the population. That is all the more worrying, as I understand that the take-up rate for vaccination must be at least 85 per cent. of the eligible population to ensure the viability of the programme and proper public protection.
I know that some people in the Department of Health do not believe in vaccine damage. I was told in answer to a recent parliamentary question to the Department of Health that
a report of a particular suspected reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the vaccine. There is no evidence to support the suggestion of a causal link between any childhood vaccines recommended in the UK and death.—[Official Report, 15 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 17W.]
The same Department of Health answer went on to inform me that 50 cases of children dying of suspected adverse reaction to routine vaccination were reported from 1990 to 1999.
Professor Gordon Stewart, an expert in the field, pointed out in a recent letter to me that
one of the main difficulties since 1974 is that the Department of Health, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and now the Medical Control Agency have always denied that there is a problem or have related the problem only to the past.
The Government are therefore faced with a stark choice. Either they accept such medical advice and tell the parents honestly that they believe, with hindsight, that the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was misguided and that no further financial support will be forthcoming, or they accept that the Act was based on good medical science and recognise, 20 years later, that it is in urgent need of reform and improvement. Needless to say, my view and that of the all-party group is that they should take the latter course.
I believe that the Government will safeguard their vaccination programmes only if people know that there will be adequate support and compensation in the small number of cases where things go tragically wrong. All new parents, even the high-profile ones, have to make a fundamental decision about the vaccination of their children. I make these points, which are essentially directed to Health Ministers, to underline my commitment to the success of the vaccination programme, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw them to the attention of Government colleagues.
Let us be clear that we are not present to debate causation which, as far as I am concerned, was settled in the 1979 Act. My constituents Gary Hunt and Brendan Hanlon have a Government-issued trust deed that says that they have been damaged by vaccine. To date, they have received a derisory £10,000 each. Gary Hunt, who is 31 years of age, is profoundly mentally and physically handicapped. He is wheelchair-bound, cannot feed

3WH
himself and cannot speak. He is doubly incontinent. Needless to say, he requires round-the-clock care, which he receives from his parents.
Brendan Hanlon is 39 years of age, but has the academic age of a child of less than two years old. He suffers from severe and unpredictable epileptic fits which all too often lead to physical injury. He, too, is cared for by his parents and close family. Both those families have received just £10,000 for responding in good faith to protect their child and to protect the rest of us in the wider community.
Other specific cases will no doubt be highlighted by other hon. Members. It is now way past the time for the wider community to discharge fully its responsibility to the victims and their families. I mention both the vaccine victims and their families because the families suffer greatly—this is a whole family issue. Parents have full-time responsibility for their sons and daughters for the whole of their lives, and relationships with partners and their other children can sometimes be adversely affected.
The Government should recognise the contribution made by those families. Had they not struggled on in the way that they have, significant extra strain would have been placed on already overstretched national health service resources. I and members of the all-party group for vaccine-damaged children want fair support and compensation for those children and their families and positive reforms of the vaccine damage payment scheme.
If prudence has been the Chancellor's hallmark, patience has been the hallmark of those parents. They have conducted their campaign for justice with extraordinary dignity, courage and forbearance. They have rightly felt anger, extreme frustration and desperation as politicians over the years have expressed sympathy with their cause but failed to deliver even when they had the power to do so. I hope that the Government will now do the right thing and deliver for vaccine victims.
Whatever heroic qualities the parents and carers may have—and they have many—they are not immortal. Since our previous debate, at least three parents of vaccine victims have died and yet another vaccine victim, Rachel Murray, has died at only 29 years of age. I can only imagine the devastation felt by her family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). He cannot be here today because of constituency commitments, but he is an active supporter of the work of the all-party group. Again, I am sure that other hon. Members will want to highlight the specific cases of their constituents.
We know that the Government are currently undertaking a review of the 1979 Act, which, if I may take issue with The Express, is not a grubby payment scheme, although it is a restrictive and inadequate payment scheme. The Act established the Government's responsibility for vaccine victims. The scheme has not stood the test of time, but I believe that it was not designed to do so. The measure was devised to deliver urgently needed money to support vaccine victims. The general assumption of Jack Ashley, how Lord Ashley,
4WH
and others was that it would provide an interim payment. The then Health Secretary, the late Lord Ennals, said that the payment would not
pre-empt decisions which the Government still have to take.
Sadly, the incoming Conservative Government insensitively and wrongly kicked those further decisions into touch. They did nothing to improve the scheme and managed only irregular upratings of the payment in 1985 and 1991. However, I was pleased to read in The Express that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the official Opposition spokesman on social security, 5 aid that the Conservative party
is very sympathetic to a generous and sensible settlement of this.
Good. That is a welcome development, which I hope will be confirmed today.
What is the scale of the issue? As of June 1998, a total of 890 payments had been made under the 1979 Act, from a total of 4,000 claims. Successive Governments since 1979 have acknowledged that almost 900 people were damaged by vaccines. The vast majority of the payments—795—were set at about £10,000. Claimants, of course, must meet a stringent 80 per cent. disability test before being eligible for an award under the Act. A person who is severely damaged by a vaccine and suffers a 70 per cent. impairment receives no payment because the disability does not meet the 80 per cent. threshold. There is no justice in such a system.
Parents' groups have raised other issues relating to vaccine damage. They believe that the number of victims is higher than the official figures that I have given. There is concern about clinical trials that allegedly took place between 1948 and 1956. It has been alleged that children suffered severe brain damage or even died during the trials and that their parents were not aware that the children were part of such clinical trials. There is also considerable concern about children who might have been damaged by vaccine but who are denied a payment under the Act as their medical records have been mislaid. Such matters are for investigation; I do not intend to pursue them today. The focus of the debate is rightly on the Government's review of the 1979 vaccine damage payment scheme.
What do we want from the Government's review? To summarise, the proposals put to the Government by the parents' groups include a substantial lump-sump payment and the payment of a severe disability pension analogous to war pensions and industrial injury pensions. They want recognition that the longest-suffering children and families have had the most expense and the least help. Further, they want the 80 per cent. disability rule tapered and the removal of the six-year time limit during which claims must be made.
The groups have also asked for the pharmaceutical industry to contribute towards additional funding. The Government have pursued the matter with the industry and parents are grateful for that as, by so doing, the Government have shown that they accept that vaccine victims constitute a special case. The response from the pharmaceutical industry has been negative. I appreciate the economic realities of taxing or levying vaccine manufacturers under a publicly funded health system. However, a spark of compassion and a measure of generosity on the part of the industry and its well-paid chief executives would have been welcomed.

5WH
As The Express noted, SmithKline Beecham, one of the world's largest vaccine manufacturers, had worldwide sales of vaccines worth £780 million last year. Diageo has recently announced additional money for the fund for thalidomide victims to ensure that the fund is inflation proofed. Celebrity criticism and the firm's concerns of the impact that that would have on its Guinness beer market no doubt prompted that action. Parents of vaccine victims could perhaps learn lessons here. The industry should take note that this is not the end.
However, it is now clear that any additional funding at present will be from public sources. Ministers have in the past said that additional funding—most specifically, compensation—is a matter to be pursued in the courts. I recently received a letter from the chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, which was previously known as the Legal Aid Board, informing me that as, of 1 April, it was likely to be able to fund claims on behalf of vaccine-damaged children and adults if there was a significant wider public interest, such as concern about the general safety of a widely available vaccine, and if not only the individual claimant would benefit.
By contrast, a typical individual claim relating to negligence by vaccination in the face of a contraindication or adverse reaction would not be funded, although it could be pursued privately under the conditional fee arrangement for legal aid. However, legal aid has already supported extensive litigation in relation to the pertussis vaccine, which was unsuccessful. The outstanding legal aid certificates for pertussis vaccine victims relate mainly to cases in which the vaccine was given after an adverse reaction to the first dose.
Families do not want and should not be forced to pursue the legal lottery that I have described under such restrictions. Additional public funding for vaccine victims is justifiable and necessary. In December 1998, I pointed out that it would cost only £79.5 million for all the children who received the original £10,000 to receive £100,000. I assume, therefore, that £200,000 each would cost about £160 million and that £300,000 per child would cost around £240 million.
My arithmetic tells me that the lowest level of £100,000 could have been funded by the additional monies vired since the beginning of the year to prop up that large plastic tent down the river. We should remind ourselves that an additional £55 million was released in February and a further £30 million last month. We sometimes need spectacle in our lives, but we need always to secure the health of the nation and to accept the responsibilities that result when accidents happen.
We must get our priorities right and do the right thing. Above all, we need a resolution to the matter now. Every Minister whom I have met to date has been sympathetic to the plight of vaccine victims and their families. The all-party group for vaccine-damaged children has requested a joint meeting with the Secretaries of State for Health and for Social Security. If we do not obtain satisfaction there, we shall he knocking on the door of 10 Downing street. Before that happens, will the Minister confirm whether his Department has requested or will request that the Treasury provide increased and adequate funds for the vaccine damage payment scheme?
6WH
In 1986, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the vaccine damage payment scheme was grossly inadequate for a lifetime of severe disability. He was right then. He can act now. In 1979, the late Lord Ennals, answering an hon. Member who expressed dismay that the £10.000 payment was not larger, said:
This is not saying, "This is the end. We are wiping the slate clean".—[Official Report, 9 May 1979; Vol. 949, c. 980.]
Unfortunately, the commitment given by Lord Ennals has yet to be met. I hope that the Government will give the House a commitment to finish the business that the previous Labour Government rightly got under way and publish their review of the 1979 vaccine damage payment scheme by the end of July.
Parents are weary and uncertain. They and their sons and daughters deserve a conclusion to their campaign and a full, final and positive settlement now.
10.25 am
Mr. Tony Baldry: I hope that the support of all hon. Members for everything that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) said is clear. We fully support his approach to the Minister and to Treasury Ministers.
As a student, I worked as a gardener for the local hospital. One of the nursing homes had formerly been an isolation clinic for teenage sufferers of tuberculosis. Among the stinging nettles in the wilder parts of the ground the old mortuary building remained. However many years passed, that place still smelt of death. As I scythed the poppies and the long grass, I used to think how terrible it was that so many children and young men and women had been cut down randomly by tuberculosis.
I visited a secondary school in Banbury the other day and asked a group of sixth formers what they understood by the initials TB. Not one associated them with tuberculosis. Why should they? To all intents and purposes, thanks to advances in medical science and to mass immunisation campaigns, TB has effectively been eradicated in the United Kingdom—likewise, polio and several other diseases that had hitherto killed, or blighted the lives of, many children. I suspect that many of us know people older than us, who were born before the possibility of inoculation against polio, who contracted it as children and survived but were in some way scarred for life.
Mass vaccination programmes have brought about amazing advances in public health and, over the past 50 or so years, in the reduction of infant mortality rates. To be effective, mass vaccination campaigns require the overwhelming majority of parents to ensure, as a matter of course, that their children are inoculated. A take-up rate of at least 85 per cent. is needed for their success, but it has become apparent over the years that, although they have brought enormous benefit to many, they have left a tiny few severely damaged—physically, mentally or both.
I do not believe that any Minister, civil servant or doctor genuinely believes that the children whom we are considering this morning have received their severe afflictions in any way other than as a consequence of vaccine damage. Suggestions that those children would have experienced mental or physical handicap quite

7WH
independently of their involvement in the campaign of mass vaccination are offensive and are not borne out by the facts. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the injuries have necessarily come about as a consequence of negligence on the part of the drugs companies manufacturing the vaccines. I do not believe that any Minister, properly informed civil servant or public health official believes that the argument can be sustained that the children were damaged by medical negligence. The simple, straightforward, inescapable fact is that in mass vaccination campaigns, such as those for measles, mumps and rubella or for polio, statistically a tiny percentage of children will, it appears, experience adverse consequences that could not have been predicted, and which will be devastating for them and their parents for the rest of their lives.
It is in the interest of the totality of the community—the public good or the commonwealth—that the relevant vaccinations should be taken up by the overwhelming majority of parents and should thus succeed. The consequence, as night follows day, is that we—society, the state or the commonwealth—should properly compensate, support and indemnify the children who tragically are not, in the event, protected by such mass vaccination but severely injured and damaged. I suspect that most, if not all, hon. Members taking part in the debate have a constituent or constituents who, sadly, fall into that group and whose parents have been battling for some time to ensure financial support for their children. A young constituent of mine, Hamish Thompson, who is now aged two, contracted paralytic poliomyelitis 10 days after receiving his polio vaccine in December 1997.
I note that the issue of proof of causation often arose in debates in the House on the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Ministers tend to suggest that there is no proof that the vaccine has directly caused the recipient's condition, as it is difficult to prove the link between brain damage and the whooping cough and measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.
Hamish had what is known in the medical world as vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis; the strain of the polio virus isolated in his stools matched that of the virus and there is total scientific proof that he contracted his polio as a direct result of being administered the polio vaccine. As of January 2000, the United States of America stopped using the live polio vaccine because of the risk of contracting polio from it: the inactive polio vaccine is just as effective and does not carry the same risk. To provide the best possible immunity against polio, it is suggested that people are given two doses of the inactive IPP vaccine and one dose of the oral vaccine. The first two doses are administered by injection and provide immunity to the body, while the third dose provides gut immunity, thus maintaining the immunity benefit to society.
We know that young babies such as Hamish have suffered from the polio vaccine. Is it still the Department of Health's advice that polio vaccine should be administered in the way in which it was administered to Hamish?
Hamish was awarded a £40,000 vaccine damage payment a few weeks ago. Objectively, that might seem a lot of money, but, as a member of the Bar who has
8WH
done a fair amount of personal injuries work, I know that that is a pittance compared to the compensation that he would properly have received if the matter had been assessed by a High Court judge. For a child of two who, as the hon. Member for Eccles said, must by definition be 80 per cent. damaged to receive any compensation and who will require nursing, care and support for the rest of his life, £40,000 is an insult. Much of that has already been spent on settling debts incurred in trying to provide a reasonable standard of nursing care for Hamish.
I fully support what the hon. Member for Eccles has proposed, but this is a simple matter; only a tiny number of children are involved. There should be a no-blame scheme, under which a High Court judge would assess their needs, as he would if negligence had been proved. A High Court judge or a court can objectively determine fair and proper compensation, having regard to the severity of the medical condition, life expectancy and all the other matters that are normally taken into account in personal injury cases.
It is a diabolical shame when a child is damaged by a Government campaign, and is then told by the same Government health service that he cannot have the equipment that he needs as there is a funding problem and should instead start to beg from charities to raise the funds. An inelegant pass-the-parcel has been going on between Whitehall Departments. The Department of Health seems to have tried to shuffle responsibility on to the Department of Social Security, the Department of Social Security has tried to shuffle responsibility on to the Department of Health and the two Departments have tried to shuffle responsibility on to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole House says, "Enough".
The time for passing the parcel on this policy must come to an end; the Government must collectively sort the matter out. Parents such as Mr. and Mrs. Thompson have been incredibly patient and long-suffering, but they and many others are entitled to know that they and their children will receive the financial support necessary to maintain them in the future. It is time for the Government to act. If they will not or do not act, that will be a scandal.
10.34 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on his excellent and well-informed speech and on his marvellous leadership of the all-party group for vaccine-damaged children. I wish him well in all the activities that he is pursuing. Indeed, the case that he presented was so comprehensive that we could almost have finished the debate at that point and gone home. I feel almost apologetic to be taking up hon. Members' time, and I do so only to add my support, for what it is worth, to the comments made by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).
I disagreed with the hon. Member for Banbury on only one point. I believe that the pharmaceutical industry has a responsibility, and is in a strong position to join us in appealing to the Government to move forward more quickly if they will accept the responsibility to do so. However, I agree with him that the game of pass-the-parcel to which he referred should come to an end.

9WH
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if, in adding my support to the splendid plea made this morning by my hon. Friend, I thank the Minister in anticipation for his reply and for the work that he is doing, because he has met me to discuss the case to which I shall refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and I both know how much a Minister is free to say. We are also aware of the colossal influence that the Treasury has on these matters. If the Treasury is following our debate, I hope that it will accept our plea that it is time to move on, and to loosen the purse strings. We cannot achieve even the minimum objectives that parents rightly demand unless the Treasury accepts that reality.
I should like to refer to the constituency case that I discussed with my hon. Friend the Minister, and to declare straight away that it is a family case. I refer to it—having spoken to the mother of my nephew and godson, Anthony Clarke, on Sunday—not only because this debate has implications for his case but because, as his mother reminded me, if we make progress for Anthony, we can make progress for other people as well. She said that she knows what other parents are going through. I can say with great humility, from my knowledge of the family, that Sadie is an absolute heroine.
Anthony was born in 1966; he is now 34 years old. There are two other younger children, now adult young women. My late brother, Robert, was killed in a car crash in 1973, when Anthony was seven. By that time, it was obvious that Anthony was profoundly mentally and physically disabled, and required 24-hour attention and a great deal of other support. It saddens me that local authorities have come under a great deal of criticism. A few weeks ago, when Anthony's mother was told that his respite care was being cut from eight weeks to four, she did not blame the local authority. I do not blame it, but I say to the Treasury, as I recall my background in local government, that we must examine our perspectives on these matters.
It will be helpful to the cause that my hon. Friend seeks so admirably to promote if I refer specifically to this case. I shall quote from a letter from the Benefits Agency to my sister-in-law, dated 30 July 1999, because it encapsulates many of the points that my hon. Friend made in his speech, and many of the demands that the various groups and parents involved in this issue are making. In response to my sister-in-law's letter of 14 July 1999, it stated:
In your letter you have asked for a further appeal because Anthony's condition has deteriorated. Under the 1979 Vaccine Damage Payments Act you can either request a reconsideration of the original decision within six years of the decision being made or ask for a review of the original decision by the Independent Tribunal Service. Because it is over six years since the original decision was made—
I remind hon. Members that Anthony is now 34—
it is no longer possible to request a reconsideration. As regards a review of the Independent Tribunal Service, you are only entitled to one review. Because you had a review in 1981 it is not possible to ask for another one. Furthermore, under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act, there is no provision for appeals.
It is with regret, therefore, that I have to inform you that I cannot accept your request for an appeal. Furthermore, there is no other means of changing the original decision.
The mother and family of this young man have undergone many pressures. Since the 1979 Act, we have learned a great deal more about the circumstances that
10WH
lead to such conditions and the demands on families who are trying to cope with them. There is a great will among Members of Parliament to do something about that. In many cases, parents become ill and less able to cope as they get older. They need the kind of recognition that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles seeks.
Before I conclude, I should like to re-emphasise three points that my hon. Friend made. First, it is manifestly absurd to stick to the 80 per cent. condition, because that assumes that it is less difficult for the parents of a child who has a 79 per cent. acceptance to cope with the situation than it is for those of a child who has an 81 per cent. acceptance. The arguments in favour of the taper are therefore overwhelming.
Secondly, despite all the facts that have been made available, there should be more research into ways of dealing with these matters. I passionately believe that the pharmaceutical industry has a role to play in that.
Thirdly, we should consider what is happening in other countries, because we can learn a great deal from them. I hope that the time will come when they look to us as a model for the treatment of the condition and its consequences for children and their parents.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in securing the debate, and on his contribution to it, and wish him God speed in everything that he seeks to achieve. As many of us know from cases in our constituencies, such situations can be tragic for families and friends. If the debate has at least offered some aspect of healing and hope, it will have achieved a great deal.
10.43 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on the way in which he led the debate and on the way in which he has, over many months, led the campaign. I lend him all my support.
In common with many hon. Members, I have examples of such tragedies in my constituency. I should especially like to mention Roy and Jean Stokes and their son Keith. Keith suffered severe brain damage as a result of a vaccination when he was a baby. As in many such cases, he is now in his late 30s, but remains at the mental age of an infant. We have heard dramatic descriptions of what that means to parents.
I am pleased to mention Roy Stokes because, for more than 35 years, he has been a leading campaigner on behalf of parents throughout the country who are trying to get justice for their children. As a Member of Parliament, I feel shame that, during that period, nothing was done—regardless of which party was in power—to address seriously the injustices that parents have suffered. The Labour party promised much in its pre-election pledges, and we were all hopeful. However, it is now time to deliver; the Minister should realise that.
The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned the compensation that was offered by the Government of Lord Callaghan. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 came into force as a result of the report produced by the Pearson commission, which was accepted by everyone as a fair interpretation of the situation. The payment of £10,000 was to be an interim payment, not the end of the affair.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the deed of trust. I have a copy of Roy Stokes's deed of trust, which states clearly that

11WH
the Secretary of State is satisfied that Keith Roy Stokes—
the son—
was born … disabled as a result of vaccination and is about to make a payment of £10,000 to the First Trustees to hold on the trust.
There is the statement. There is no question that there is any reason other than vaccination for the child being so severely disabled. As the Pearson commission said, there should be, in cases involving severe brain damage, a right to court judgment and to just and appropriate compensation. That was 25 or more years ago, but nothing of any substance has happened since. The ensuing Governments must recognise that, to their eternal shame, they have not grasped the issue. They have ignored the key issues and have changed the rules.
I shall illustrate what I mean by changing the rules. How can a logical mind accept the view that a child who is brain damaged by vaccine should be treated the same as a child who is born with brain damage? There is a world of difference between a tragic accident of nature and the effects of a vaccination programme for which, as Governments know, it is a statistical certainty that there will be casualties, even if the health of the nation as a whole will be improved. More importantly, parents also know that there will be casualties, which might explain why take-up rates are falling. That worries those of us who are concerned about the health of the nation.
It is important that parents know that, if they are unfortunate enough to suffer this tragedy, they will get just compensation. Over the past few years, the confidence of parents that they will be supported if there is an accident has been eroded. It is not acceptable to offer the normal social services support packages, as if the children had suffered natural damage. We all know the hoops and hurdles that people must navigate to win what should be theirs as of right. Often, there is means testing, or the funds in local authority budgets are curtailed. That is an almost bestial way to approach the problem. We are supposed to be a civilised society, in which people in need are cared for. We should be able to take pride in the fact that, in our society, such people are not left wanting, through no fault of their own.
We should follow the examples provided by other countries, where parents have received compensation adequate to allow them to ensure that their children are properly cared for. We need to reassure parents, who are offering their babies for vaccination for the public good, that they will be compensated with sufficient funds to help them cope with the burden of a lifetime of caring, if something goes tragically wrong.
I would like to draw attention to the five key points made by the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children. First, we should take the Pearson report off the shelf, dust it down and, 20 years on, establish what to make of it. It makes some very good points. Secondly, we should consider awarding a lump sum in accordance with what would be achieved in the courts. Thirdly, we could pay a lump sum to top up existing allowances, but that must be additional to, and not a substitute for, local authority services. Fourthly, we could set up a special fund through the pharmaceutical industry. If that worked in the thalidomide case, why should not it work for vaccine damage? I see no difference between the two cases.
12WH
Fifthly, the exceptionally severe disability payment pension could be paid to children, which would take the burden off parents.
The Government have a chance to act, and they should take it. They should also recognise that the cost of supporting causalities in a vaccine programme should be costed into that programme—it should be part of the package. We need to live in the real world.
Finally, I return to my constituents, Roy and Jean Stokes, who are now in their seventies and who have given a lifetime of care to their son, Keith. One can only begin to imagine how that affected their quality of life, although they gave willingly and lovingly. As they grow older and more infirm, they are less able to support their son. However, rather than getting extra help, the fact that they are in their seventies means that they have lost their marriage allowance and their carers allowance. Roy's pension is also now taxable, which leaves them £3,000 a year worse off. That is, frankly, a disgrace.
10.51 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate. Powerful speeches have been made today and were made on 2 December 1998. There is a sense of déjà vu about today's debate—the review that was promised in 1998 has still not taken place.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), will respond to our debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out that this matter involves not only benefit payments but public health, so it might have been more appropriate if the Minister for Public Health had been present to respond. Unless we ensure that there is confidence in the immunisation system, take-up will drop. The imminent measles epidemic which has been predicted for parts of Europe may be relevant in this context.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made a powerful speech, but I disagree with him—TB has not been eradicated. One of the lessons that we have to learn is that such diseases are always around. We must remain vigilant and find the best form of protection for the wider community. However, if we are to do that, we must compensate those individuals who have suffered from, or whose condition is linked to, receiving a vaccination.
As a medical practitioner, I cannot be certain in every case I see that there is a distinct causal link when a person becomes ill after an immunisation. However, one must give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who had a perfectly nice, normal baby who became ill after a course of immunisation. There are conditions that do not show themselves until a baby is about three months old, which is the age when immunisations are usually offered. To have the population's confidence, we need to protect our society at large.
Frankly, this matter should not be left to the pharmaceutical industry. In this area, there is not a competitive market. Selected manufacturers are chosen by the Department of Health to supply a vaccine, and it is that Department and the state that should take responsibility.

13WH
I am wary of the Department of Health's statement that the vaccines are safe—it has maintained that for many years. At the same time, it is encouraging research into newer, safer vaccines. If a safe vaccine already exists, why are we conducting research into newer, safer ones? As with the 1979 Act, that is an admission of a link; it admits that a small number of people run a statistical risk of suffering the devastating consequences of immunisation.
The willingness of successive Governments to allow people to litigate against deliverers or producers of the vaccine has not proved particularly helpful, and runs against a desire to protect the community. Manufacturers are being restricted and are increasing the number of contraindications. For example, it is nonsense to regard a history of epilepsy as a contraindicator to giving vaccine, but should a condition worsen after vaccination the manufacturer could be sued. That illustrates the need for some form of no-fault compensation, to which the hon. Member for Banbury referred.
The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) illustrated clearly why the 1979 Act is failing older people. I, too, have a number of constituents whose parents are elderly and can no longer cope, and they need to know that the work that they have carried out devotedly for 30 or 40 years will be continued. The hon. Member for Eccles said that nothing has changed since 1979, but the initial payment, which was understood to be an interim payment, has become a final payment. The 1979 Act acknowledged that some people carry an extra burden. Such people are owed a review, and it is our collective responsibility to do something about this issue.
I do not want to have to participate in yet another debate on this issue in 18 months' time. The Government cannot keep shirking their responsibility, and they certainly should riot pass responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry or the courts.
10.57 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: This is the second time that I have contributed to a vaccine damage debate initiated by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart). It is clearly a subject about which he feels passionately and, once again, he has spoken most powerfully. However, his language was simple and unemotional, and his argument was the more powerful for that.
Hon. Members have spoken eloquently on this issue today. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) neatly illustrated that it is not only children who have been damaged by vaccines, but adults. He also mentioned carers. Carers who have been dealing with such problems for many decades are no longer able to provide the same level of personal care that was provided previously. There is a duty on the House and the Government's shoulders to find a solution to the problem.
As hon. Members have said, the previous debate on this subject took place on 2 December 1998, which was a significant date. There was a certain amount of excitement about compensation for vaccine damage and a feeling that an announcement from the Government was imminent. The Government made several promises.
14WH
The hon. Member for Eccles described it as a run around the paddock, so let me make it clear what that run involved.
On 23 June, in the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the then Minister of State referred to
the vaccine damage payment scheme being considered as part of the welfare review.—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 June 1998; c. 3.]
Shortly before that debate, in a written answer on 2 November, Baroness Hollis said in the other place that
an announcement will be made in due course.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 28W.]
In replying to the debate on 2 December, the then Minister of State said that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security
hopes to conclude our review early in the new year.—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 817.]
That was 1999. Early that year, on 27 April, Baroness Hollis said that
an announcement will be made as soon as possible.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 April 1999; Vol. 600, c. 26W.]
We heard recently from the Minister that the Government are examining the feasibility of setting up a fund to provide help for people who have suffered vaccine damage. That seems to represent a slight pulling back in that the Government are no longer saying that they will do something as soon as possible; they are just looking into the matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles that we should try to ensure that the review is concluded by July at the latest. We know from the newspapers that negotiations between the Government and drugs companies seem to have broken down. It would be helpful if the Minister would take the Chamber into his confidence and tell us a little about the progress of those negotiations.
There are good reasons why we should reach a decision reasonably quickly. Every time the story raises its head and every time it receives news coverage, fears are raised among parents about the immunisation programme and this may cause some people not to have their children vaccinated. Of course, most newspaper coverage has been serious and sensible but, regrettably, some has been sensational. My godson is of an age to receive immunisation. I know that his parents have genuine worries and there is a niggling doubt at the back of their minds about whether the process is sensible.
As hon. Members have said, the public vaccination programme has been a great success. I look around Westminster Hall and, with the exception of one or two senior and distinguished hon. Members, I see that we are all of much the same age, an age that benefited from the vaccination programme. When I was a child, there were 157,000 cases of whooping cough a year, of which 300 resulted in death. Now, 40 years later, there is, fortunately and pleasingly, only one death a year. Those childhood illnesses killed many and denied many children the opportunity to develop a happy and successful life. The vaccination programme has enabled many children to live, and many of us perhaps owe our existence to it.

15WH
As the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), said in reply to the last debate,
No child in England and Wales has died from acute measles-related illness since 1992. All those figures establish that the immunisation programme provides benefits not only to society as a whole but to the individual and his or her family.—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 816.]
There cannot be a better illustration of the need for vaccination programmes than tuberculosis, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) referred. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is an acute shortage of the tuberculosis vaccine, and there is a backlog in the school immunisation programme which can cause delays of up to two years in our schools. A comparison of last year's figures with those of 1970 is unsurprising in the light of that shortage. In 1970, 1,901 cases of tuberculosis were reported; last year, 6,144 were reported. If ever there was an illustration of the need for a vaccination programme, surely it is tuberculosis.
There is a further reason why we should solve the problem. Vaccination policy is there in the public interest; it saves lives. However, any mass vaccination programme involves a risk—it may be slight, but it is a risk nevertheless. Mr. Mike Watson, the medical director of Aventis Pasteur, which distributes vaccines, said:
There is a quantifiable risk, even though it is tiny, so you should have a scheme in place to compensate people—
the people who suffer from vaccine damage. In the United States, the vaccine companies contribute to a central fund.
Parliament, the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security say that parents should immunise their children, because the argument in favour of doing so is overwhelming. We advance that argument in the full and certain knowledge that accidents will occur and that the victims are victims for the common good. Those people deserve our protection, and it is the protection of compensation that the House should offer.
Two principal changes, to which hon. Members have already referred, can be made. First, good and compelling arguments suggest that there should be a sliding scale below the 80 per cent. disability limit, although that rule is common to most methods of calculating disability. Secondly, it is argued that the six-year rule for making a claim, which involves a cut-off point, is too restrictive and should be abandoned. Those arguments were addressed by Ministers on two recent occasions in the Chamber and in another place. On 29 June, when she introduced uprating, Baroness Hollis said:
Fixing the extent of disablement at 80 per cent. or more was based on a well-established social security principle assessed for the purposes of section 57 of the Social Security Act 1975. In fact, it is the same basis as the industrial injuries benefits scheme and the 80 per cent. threshold reads across the severe disablement allowance. So it is a fairly standard measure for disability.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 509.]
On 2 December 1998, in response to points about the six-year rule, the then Minister of State for Health said:
16WH
Marginal changes in the time limit would not assist in the overwhelming majority of cases. The substantial length of the process would make obtaining medical and other relevant evidence after long periods increasingly difficult.—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 816.]
I believe that those views are wrong in two important respects, which have been addressed by hon. Members this morning. The difference is that the 80 per cent. disability rule has been engendered by the state on its own behalf and is part of the immunisation process of which some people are victims. The suggestion that the rule makes no difference belies the fact that appeals and applications are turned down. An average of 73 per cent. of cases have been turned down each year since 1992 because applications have been made more than six years after vaccination.
One point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made about the 80 per cent. rule needs to be emphasised. The 80 per cent. disability must relate to vaccine damage. An application from a person who, in the opinion of the assessors, is 70 per cent. disabled through vaccine damage and 10 per cent. disabled through another cause would fail. That makes no sense.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, who said that it was a pity that the Minister for Public Health is not present. I have every confidence in the Under-Secretary with regard to the settlement of the case—he does not share the views of hon. Members mentioned previously. We know that he wishes to see an end to the 80 per cent. rule and to the six-year period because he was a signatory to two early-day motions—one on 16 April 1996 and another on 23 May 1994.
People sometimes sign early-day motions that come back to haunt them, but that is not the case here. The Under-Secretary signed both motions and was not isolated in doing so. More than 300 signatures were gained. The Minister of State for Social Security signed one of the motions. His colleagues, the parliamentary private secretaries in the Department of Social Security and the Whip responsible for that Department, signed. If the hon. Member for Eccles is right to say that the argument is between officials and politicians, the weight of the political argument lies in the Department. Everyone signed the early-day motions, with the exception of the present Secretary of State, who no doubt was precluded from signing because of his position then as a member of the shadow Cabinet. The entire Department—possibly with the exception of Ministers serving in another place—are behind ending the 80 per cent. limit and the six-year rule. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary will make clear the way in which it is intended to end them.
The matter should not become political. However, politics enter the question of what is in a Government's programme. I want to make it absolutely clear that, if the Government seek to amend the Act or to make the necessary changes by secondary legislation, Opposition Members promise to do everything in their power to co-operate and to work towards a speedy resolution of the case.
11.13 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate, which is important not only for

17WH
those who have received vaccine damage payments but for their parents, families and carers. Many of us have constituents who must contend daily with the difficult circumstances of caring for a severely disabled child or, too often now, a severely disabled adult. I pay tribute to the relentless devotion of the families to their children, and to the tenacity of their campaigns to establish a vaccine damage payment scheme in the 1970s and to have that reviewed.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles for his constructive and helpful role—which has not always been comfortable for me as a Social Security Minister—in leading the all-party group on vaccine damage. His speech reflected his depth of feeling on the issue and his sensitivity towards the families involved. I congratulate other hon. Members who, for many years, have tried to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
I shall begin by responding to specific points. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) mentioned the case of his constituent, Hamish Thompson. There is medical evidence of a causal link between polio vaccine and injury, which I shall address in more detail if I have time. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it remains Department of Health policy to administer polio vaccine in the way in which it was given to his constituent. The Department of Health programme is based on advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It continues to recommend oral polio vaccine for the United Kingdom. The situation in the United States is different. The whole of the Americas, from Baffin island in Canada to the tip of Chile, is declared free of polio, which is not the case in our hemisphere.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman on one point: the policy has not been subject to a game of pass-the-parcel between Departments—certainly not by this Government. Departments have worked closely together. Indeed, I have worked with colleagues in the Department of Health and other Departments. I do not want to make this a party political issue, but if there was a time when Departments tried to duck their responsibility, it was in the 18 years of the Conservative party's Administration when. despite requests for a review, none took place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) has discussed his nephew's case with me. I acknowledge and congratulate him on his role as a long-standing and committed campaigner for all disabled people, not just members of his family. Indeed, he has outlined the Labour party's policies to disability groups in my constituency. He graphically explained how the six-year time limit restricts the ability of his nephew to receive further consideration of his case. I assure him that the review is addressing that issue, and the Government's views will be made known when it is published.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) made several points on the medical benefits and risks of vaccination. I agree with much of what he said. He asked whether the initial vaccine damage payment scheme was envisaged as being an interim scheme. It was not. At Second Reading of the Vaccine Damage Payments Bill, the Opposition spokesman, Patrick Jenkin, said to the Secretary of State, the late Lord Ennals:
18WH
I do not think that at any stage has the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "an interim payment" … the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely careful at no stage ever to use that expression. —[Official Report, 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 69.]
David Ennals's reply was "Quite right." In Committee he said that he had never looked on the Bill as an interim measure.
Mr. Stewart: How can the late Lord Ennals's statement that the issue was not at an end be squared with the statement that the payment was not an interim measure?
Mr. Bayley: I cannot, of course, speak for the Secretary of State 20 years ago, but I imagine that he had in mind the many and varied recommendations of the Pearson report. It dealt with people damaged by vaccine and there was a recommendation on vaccine damage, but it was a much wider-ranging royal commission, and the debate concerned the wider issue. It was made clear during the passage of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 that there would be a response at some point to wider issues raised by the Pearson committee.
It might help my hon. Friend and hon. Members if I said something about the background to the review of the vaccine damage payment scheme announced by the Government. Of course, through the 18 years when the Conservatives were in power, parents pressed for a review of the scheme. Shortly after the general election, Labour Ministers were approached both by the organisations campaigning on the victims' behalf and by the newly formed all-party group. On 19 May 1998, my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis announced that a review would be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Health as part of the Government's welfare review programme. During the review, several meetings have taken place between Ministers and members of the all-party group. On occasion, they have been attended by members of the parents' groups, who have powerfully and movingly made their case to me and to others.
The parents' groups want several changes and not all have made the same points. However, they want five principle issues to be dealt with: the abolition of a six-year time limit; a reduction in the 80 per cent. disability threshold and/or its replacement with a sliding-scale basis for vaccine damage payment awards; an additional lump sum for previous recipients of vaccine damage payments; a specific on-going benefit for those damaged following vaccination; and a contribution from the pharmaceutical industry towards the support of those damaged by vaccines. They have also raised questions about vaccination incentive payments and the promotion of vaccines.
To return to the origins of the scheme, after a campaign by parents in the 1970s an extra-statutory scheme was begun in May 1978 and the Bill relating to the present statutory scheme was introduced in February 1979. That provided for a lump sum for people severely damaged as a result of vaccination under a routine public vaccination programme. I have read carefully the Hansard reports of debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee and perhaps I should pay tribute to three people. One is Rosemary Fox, who was cited time after time in those debates as a parent and campaigner who brought the issue to the attention of

19WH
Parliament. I firmly believe that, without her campaigning, the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 would never have reached the statute book. The other two people are Jack Ashley and Alf Morris, who was then in my shoes, as the junior Minister responsible for the Bill.
When the Bill was introduced, the Secretary of State for Social Services, the late Lord Ennals, made it clear that the scheme was not about compensation but about payments. It was designed to provide a lump sum payment of £10,000 to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from severe vaccine damage. The amount has been progressively increased over the years and was last raised to £40,000 on 1 July 1998, shortly after my right hon. Friend announced the Government's review. That increase more than restored the payment to its 1991 value, when it was previously increased. Based on the retail prices index, simple indexation would have produced a figure of £38,194.
Mr. Andy King: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even though the original figure has been upgraded to £40,000, it is a derisory sum which does not ease the burden of care on the families, to which he has referred so eloquently?
Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. In the time that is available, I shall explain as much as I can about the progress of the review. The sum is one of the issues under review.
I said in response to the hon. Member for Banbury that, although there is a one-in-a-million risk of contracting paralytic polio from the oral polio vaccine, as the Government acknowledge, there is a lack of clear scientific evidence linking routine childhood vaccinations to permanent damage. The High Court judgment in 1988 in the Loveday case dealt with whether, on the balance of probability and for the purpose of tort damages, it had been proved that the pertussis vaccine had caused permanent brain damage. In his judgment, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concluded:
I have now come to the clear conclusion that the plaintiff—
Loveday—
fails to satisfy me on the balance of probability that pertussis vaccine can cause permanent brain damage in young children. It is possible that it does; the contrary cannot be proved.
20WH
That is not the same as saying that disability as a result of vaccination cannot happen. For that reason, each claim is given individual consideration. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles that nobody from the Government is seeking to open the question of causation in any cases in which a vaccine damage payment has been made.
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend took a risk in mentioning names before, because there are many names, not least of which is Olivia Price of the Vaccine Victims Support Group. She tells me, and I believe that it is correct, that confidence is directly related to the success of the vaccine programmes. Does my hon. Friend accept that and accept that a lack of confidence in one vaccine programme can have a negative knock-on effect on other vaccine programmes?
Mr. Bayley: Yes, I agree, but I am heartened by what a number of hon. Members have said today about the importance in public health terms of a vaccination programme.
I recently wrote a foreword to a book by a constituent, Brian Sanctuary, about the open-air schools in York, the hospital schools which were the predecessors of special schools. In 1922, out of 112 pupils in the Fulford school in my constituency, 25 were suffering from TB, seven from polio and two from diphtheria. As a result of the vaccination scheme, the health of the children who receive education in special schools has changed beyond recognition.
In the short time available, I must respond to the questions about the timetable and the conduct of the review. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles asked whether the DSS has requested additional funds from the Treasury. He is right to say that the review involves several Departments, including the Treasury. It is not normal for a Minister to comment on internal Government processes, but I can confirm that, when an announcement is made, it will be with the full agreement of the Treasury. That will need to be built into the timetable.
I very much regret that the review was not concluded earlier, and I know that the parents concerned are desperate that it should be concluded. Two years is indeed a long time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Rural Abattoirs
11.30 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I preface my remarks by drawing attention to the declaration under my name in the Register of Members' Interests and by stating that I am a paid-up member of the National Trust and the Country Landowners Association and a life member of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. Those are three of the seven national organisations that are campaigning to save Britain's smaller abattoirs. However, they are only the tip of the iceberg. In March this year, no less than 137 bodies and associations were co-signatories to a letter that was sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is a huge increase on the 12 national organisations that endorsed a letter that I wrote to Baroness Hayman last August.
Given that small abattoirs represent a tiny sector of a relatively small industry, that level of concern and support is unprecedented. It is about to be underscored by a public petition that is being organised by the Country Landowners Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Soil Association.
My constituent, Mr. Colin Kinmond, is one of those business men on behalf of whom the campaign is being waged. Mr. Kinmond is the proprietor of the Bishop's Castle Meat Company. When I visited him 10 days ago, he was beside himself with anger and frustration—not about the state of the trade or his ability to supply a product, as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but about the oppression and interference that he experiences from the Meat Hygiene Service. He is not alone in that. Scores of other craftsmen running small abattoirs feel the same way: pilloried and persecuted by what is euphemistically called a service—and for which, ironically, they must pay—but is in fact an enforcement agency, which should, if there were any justice and consistency, be paid for out of public funds.
That brings me to the nub of the issue: the level of meat inspection charges. I am grateful to Mr. John Chadwick of the Small Abattoir Federation for supplying the following statistic. He calculates that, when 100 per cent. veterinary supervision is implemented next April, a low-volume abattoir will pay £44 per unit for inspection. That is 11 times the unit charge of £4.14 in a high-throughput abattoir. Those figures are entirely consistent with those that were given to me by the noble Lady in her letter of 21 September, in which she stated that the current hourly rates of official veterinary surgeons employed in abattoirs range from £25.01 to £106.18. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that that is intolerable and unsustainable for small abattoirs paying the higher charges. The inevitable consequence will be an acceleration of closures as the April 2001 deadline approaches—unless something is done, such as scrapping the present charging regime in favour of a universally applied headage charge.
I shall avoid going over the same ground that I have covered in parliamentary debates, at Question Time and in countless meetings and frequent correspondence with Ministers, so as to be able to devote some time to another aspect of the matter. On 1 April this year, the
22WH
Meat Hygiene Service, which had previously been under the aegis of Agriculture Ministers, became the responsibility of Health Ministers. I welcome that change because it creates a better environment in which to examine the issues involved more objectively than was previously the case. The issues at stake—no pun intended—are those of public health and the safety of individual consumers.
In another place, Baroness Hayman said that
red meat slaughterhouses in this country declined in number from 1,385 in 1975 to 339 last year. Over the past 25 years, there has been an inexorable reduction.
One of the most important things we can do is to move from a prescriptive approach to a risk-based approach in abattoirs.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 797.]
I trust that Health Ministers will endorse that sentiment, and I hope that they will also accept my invitation to reassess the risks and hazards associated with abattoirs in the context of all their other public health responsibilities.
A recent report by the National Audit OfficeHC230—entitled "The Management and Control of Hospital Acquired Infection in Acute NHS Trusts in England" says:
Around 9 per cent. of patients have a hospital acquired infection at any one time.
It goes on to say:
None of the studies … took into account hospital acquired infections that develop after a patient leaves hospital … This suggests that the true extent of hospital acquired infection is higher than the prevalence or incidence studies suggest.
Another paragraph is headed:
Some patients die each year as a result of hospital acquired infections.
It goes on to say that
a crude comparison indicates that if US—
that is, United States of America—
rates were applicable in the United Kingdom, 5,000 deaths … might be primarily attributable to hospital acquired infection and in a further 15,000 cases … hospital acquired infection might he a substantial contributor.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no such horror stories associated with abattoirs, least of all with craft abattoirs regularly producing bacteriologically sounder carcases than is often possible in plant abattoirs. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that any breakdown of hygiene standards in big abattoirs obviously prejudices the health of many more consumers than such occurrences in small abattoirs. However, the risk of fresh meat causing illness, whether sourced from large or small abattoirs, is infinitesimal because almost no meat is eaten raw in this country, and such bacteria as there might be are destroyed in the cooking process. Current methods of inspection in abattoirs cannot detect bacteria in any case. My plea to Health Ministers, now that they have assumed responsibility for the integrity of meat hygiene, is that they should carry out an urgent reassessment of risks.
An editorial in The Daily Telegraph on 4 April 2000 stated:
Worrying about food safety has become a slightly batty and extremely damaging national obsession.
It is hard to disagree with that assessment in the context of fresh meat being low risk compared with other comestibles, of more cases of sickness and death being

23WH
caused by hospitals than are ever caused by abattoirs, and of small craft abattoirs being driven out of business by the burden and cost of a totally disproportionate inspection regime that does not exist in hospital—as we have seen from recent scandals such as the Rodney Ledward case. The facts speak for themselves—abattoirs and slaughtermen must, by law, be licensed and supervised, while hospitals are neither licensed nor monitored.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent closure of Mead Webber, an abattoir in Herefordshire, perfectly illustrates his argument? It closed because totally unacceptable conditions were placed on it, which meant that throughput went down and it ceased to be economically viable.
Mr. Gill: Had time permitted, I should have discussed the Mead Webber abattoir in more detail. As the hon. Gentleman said, that case illustrates my point to a T. A new official veterinary surgeon imposed arbitrary conditions on the continuation of its licence, notwithstanding the fact that 16 predecessors in his office thought that it should continue in production.
I continue my theme of inspection. The Public Health Laboratory Service Board monitors food poisoning, but there is not an equivalent body for hospitals. One in 11 acute admissions to hospital ends up with some form of hospital infection, but there is no independent certification of hospital standards or of causes of death. With regard to communicable diseases, hospitals are the biggest single source of infection. Whichever way one examines the matter, it is hard to escape the conclusion that failings in terms of public health occur not so much in abattoirs as in other areas. To coin a phrase, Ministers and Departments are looking through the wrong end of the microscope.
The number of hon. Members who signed early-day motions 187 and 689 during this Parliament and early-day motion 845 during the previous Parliament shows that this issue is not party political and that it involves common sense and natural justice.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Before my hon. Friend ends his interesting speech—I congratulate him on his delivery—I draw his attention to the problems that face Henry Lang, a small craft boutique abattoir in Ashburton in my constituency. I have fought its cause for six months, but it has only just received a full licence. The bureaucracy, rules and regulations and limited throughput may drive it out of business during the coming months. The proof of the pudding lies with the quality of the abattoir—the goods that have been produced during the past 100 years show that my hon. Friend's comments on hospitals are spot on. I should rather have products from Mr. Lang's abattoir than from the local hospital.
Mr. Gill: I would be grateful to my hon. Friend if he would convey to his constituent my sincere sympathy. I am a fourth generation butcher—my family has produced meat for consumers in the west midlands for four generations. We operated before there was relevant
24WH
legislation, compulsory meat inspections or refrigeration. There is a presumption that those who have not spent any length of time in the industry, and who may have obtained their learning from studies and books, know more about the industry than those of us who have been in it for generations. My hon. Friend's constituent has my full sympathies.
The Under-Secretary, who is obviously an astute politician—that is evidenced by her rapid rise to the Front Bench since her entry into Parliament in May 1997—has my assurance that the consensus on the Back Benches is that small abattoirs should be supported. However, I am sure that she recognises that, if the action that is needed to save small abattoirs is not taken urgently, the odium for that failure will inevitably attach itself to the Government, of whom she is a member.
When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, I hope that she will give us four assurances. If she does so, the industry will be relieved and thankful. First, will she give an assurance that she will reassess the specific level of risk to human health posed by abattoirs, given her Department's overall responsibility for health matters? Secondly, will she take the initiative to move from the prescriptive method of meat inspection to one based on a realistic assessment of risk? Thirdly, will she champion the cause that meat inspection, like almost every public health protection measure, should be carried out at public expense? Fourthly—but much more urgently—we should put Britain on a similar footing to other European Union countries, by instituting a charging regime based on headage payments. I urge the Government to do that while there is still time to save the relatively few remaining rural abattoirs, which are central to the aspirations of people of all parties and none for the future well-being of the rural economy.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on securing a debate on such an important topic. I know that he takes a particular interest in the issue and that he has been involved with it for a long time. As his speech demonstrated, it is an area in which, as I readily acknowledge, he has expertise.
From the outset, I must emphasise the fact that the Government recognise the importance of small and specialist abattoirs to the rural economy. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), made that clear in the House on 25 May, during Agriculture questions. The hon. Gentleman described some of the problems faced by the sector and referred to individual cases. I will respond to the points that he made and set out details of the action that we are taking in response to those concerns.
Hon. Members will be aware that food safety is the first priority of the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible for meat hygiene. The agency is, rightly, determined to ensure that fresh meat is produced as hygienically as possible and will not accept any lessening of public health safeguards, no matter what the size or location of the abattoir concerned. The current system of veterinary supervision and official meat inspection

25WH
provides key public health safeguards. However, as the Department of Health agrees, the system is outdated and expensive. The Food Standards Agency, therefore, is pressing for early changes to European meat hygiene law, so that we move from the prescriptive system to one based on risk. That is an important matter, and we are pressing for the change to be made. Such an approach is better for addressing modern microbiological hazards, puts the responsibility for the production of safe meat on the shoulders of the industry and brings abattoirs into line with other food-producing sectors. We must be realistic and accept that it may not be an easy task. Inevitably, it will take time, but it is important that we move in that direction.
We also understand the importance of local slaughtering facilities, especially those that service small rural communities. We want all animals to be slaughtered as near as possible to their farms of origin. If animals have to travel, welfare legislation provides a number of controls to protect them, including maximum journey times, vehicle standards and transporter competence. Those rules are rigorously enforced. In the meantime, current inspection rules will apply.
We acknowledge that there are difficulties that result from increased levels of veterinary supervision and the associated Meat Hygiene Service costs. We have, therefore, acted in a number of ways to help small and medium-sized abattoirs and the farmers who supply them, while we try to make progress on the key issue of changing the European position. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced last year, the Government continue to meet the cost of enforcing specified risk material controls and cattle passports. We will do so until 2002–03, at the earliest. Together, the two measures will save the industry £89 million, over three years.
Mr. Gill: I understand exactly what the hon. Lady is saying. We have heard it from Ministers so many times. Does she realise that it is no consolation to people who run abattoirs that the Government have not imposed a charge that might otherwise have been imposed? Such people already face cost burdens that they cannot sustain.
Yvette Cooper: I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. We are making progress and I shall outline other measures that I think will prove helpful, but it is important to point out that this measure makes a difference. Although others might make a greater difference, it would be wrong to dismiss it out of hand.
Mr. Steen: The Minister is blaming the European Union for much of the cost, but does she agree that the real problem is the Government's interpretation of the EU directive? It is our fault that charges in British abattoirs are horrifically higher than in other European countries.
Yvette Cooper: I will come on to the Government's implementation of the EU directive and action taken by the European Commission, and I hope that that will address the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in December that the Government froze Meat Hygiene Service hourly rates
26WH
for 1999–2000 at 1998–99 levels, saving the meat industry about £7 million. We also restricted the increase in hourly rates for 2000–01 to 2.2 per cent. from 1 May, which is in line with inflation and the commitment made by the Government last year. That restriction is worth about £4.5 million to the meat industry.
The Government also obtained and published advice from the European Commission stating that full-time supervision by a veterinarian of permanently derogated low-throughput abattoirs is not required during post mortem inspection, but is required during ante mortem inspection. The Food Standards Agency is considering how best to give full effect to the Commission's advice, so that there is maximum benefit to low-throughput plants while maintaining public health safeguards.
Mr. Lembit ÖOpik: I am glad to hear that, because derogation is extremely important to low-throughput abattoirs. When will the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food make a formal policy statement on implementation?
Yvette Cooper: I cannot answer that now. It is a matter for the Food Standards Agency, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with an answer.
The Meat Hygiene Service has frozen veterinary supervision in low-throughput plants at May 1999 levels while work is on-going. In addition, the Government have accepted, or are considering, 32 of 35 recommendations made by the meat industry red tape working group—the Pooley group—and are pressing on with implementation. The Food Standards Agency is taking forward the 29 recommendations that fall to it, and will consult widely on specific proposals as they emerge.
Mr. Gill: I am glad that the Minister has mentioned the Pooley report, and I am delighted that, by and large, the Government have accepted it. We realise that there are two or three recommendations on which the Government cannot proceed without European Union approval, but can the Minister confirm that shifting charges for British abattoirs on to a headage basis is within the Government's power, and requires no sanction from Brussels? Will she also promise today that she will institute immediately the change that is desperately needed to preserve our small abattoirs?
Yvette Cooper: The issue is being considered by the meat charges task force, which is due to report later this month, so I cannot give a specific answer at this stage. We are implementing most of the Pooley group's recommendations, including the radical overhaul of meat inspection. As I have said, the Food Standards Agency is pressing hard for the early introduction of a risk-based control system for fresh meat plants. In addition, the agency is supporting the Commission's initiative for a fundamental review of meat inspection procedures. Early discussions in Brussels have indicated almost unanimous member state support for a rapid review of those procedures. They are recognised to be outdated and it is accepted that they must be replaced by controls that are based on risk.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we are unable to accept some of the recommendations because it is not legally possible to do so without changes in the European

27WH
position. For example, the need for increased veterinary supervision arises from the previous Government's under-implementation of Community meat hygiene rules, for which the European Commission has begun infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom. The legislation specifies the level and frequency of such supervision and the Commission has made it clear that it regards under-implementation by the UK of veterinary supervision requirements as a serious matter.
Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Lady accept that the way in which the veterinary inspection is carried out in this country is different from how it is done in other EU member states? British abattoirs undoubtedly have to meet an additional cost. Will she also confirm that the time scale for reform of the EU processes is likely to be elongated and that the changes may come too late for many of our smaller abattoirs?
Yvette Cooper: The European Commission is currently undertaking infraction proceedings against the British Government because of under-implementation by the previous Government. We must accept that and respond to it. Obviously, a timetable is involved and the process will take time, but we must recognise our legal position.
The Pooley group has considered many of the issues in detail and has made recommendations, which we are taking forward. We will continue to explore solutions to the problems faced by small and medium-sized abattoirs, as long as they allow the public health safeguards to be maintained. The Food Standards Agency has set up a task force, as was recommended by the Pooley group, to explore the issues associated with a capping approach to meat hygiene inspection charges for low-volume abattoirs.
Following the meeting of stakeholders in March, Colin MacLean, the former director general of the Meat and Livestock Commission, was appointed as chairman. The remaining members have an understanding of the wider meat industry and of the way in which it works, and collectively represent the interests of the industry as a whole. As I said, the task force is due to report back to the wider stakeholder group before submitting its report and recommendations to the Food Standards Agency.
Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Lady assure us that she and her Department are conscious of the facts and that they will
28WH
re-examine and reassess the levels of risk associated with meat produced in abattoirs in conjunction with risk in all other areas of public health for which she and her Department are responsible, so that we can get the matter into proportion?
Yvette Cooper: Questions about risk in this area are a matter for the Food Standards Agency. It is right for that independent agency to take that responsibility, not least for the sake of consumer confidence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned broader risks; indeed, there are risks that we should be working to reduce across the national health service. We are doing so and are undertaking a programme of action to address risks associated with hospital-acquired infection. For example, we introduced the Commission for Health Improvement to take further action on that matter. I do not think that many people would regard the fact that we need to take further action in one area as a reason to relax some public health safeguards in another. The hon. Gentleman's question about the assessment of risk must be addressed as part of making the changes that are necessary in Europe, which will be a matter for the Food Standards Agency.
The agency is also tackling the issue in another way. It has established a task force to study the burden of food regulation on small food businesses, in whose scope small abattoirs will be included. This is a major programme of Government support, especially for the small rural abattoir.
Mead Webber has been mentioned. I am unable to comment on the matter, not only because of lack of time but because it is the subject of an independent investigation by the Food Standards Agency. The outcome of its investigation will be published, in line with its principles of openness and transparency.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. We share his concern about the future of small abattoirs. They are important to the rural economy, which is why we have introduced a programme of support. In addition, we are pressing for changes in Europe and for implementation of the Pooley group recommendations. We are committed to putting the consumer first, as are the Food Standards Agency and the Meat Hygiene Service. The protection of public health in relation to food must be our priority.

Former British POWs
12 noon
Mr. David Winnick: The Minister will know of the long-running campaign to compensate former British prisoners of war who were held by the Japanese. The campaign, which will continue until it is successful, aims to get these prisoners of war financial recognition of the immense suffering and outright brutality and torture that they endured under the Japanese. I pay tribute to organisations such as the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association, the Far East Prisoners of War Association and the Royal British Legion, which have done much to keep the issue alive. I also pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised the subject in this and the previous Parliament and who, like me, are determined to keep it going.
Five years ago, on the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war, I and many other Members of Parliament and the Lords—perhaps you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker—attended a large gathering at Church house. The former prisoners of war of the Japanese who were there expressed two strongly felt views—that the present Japanese Government should apologise for what happened and that there should be financial compensation. It would be fair to say that, according to their custom and tradition, the Japanese have properly apologised, but that is all. It goes without saying that those of us who have asked the British Government to make a financial contribution would have preferred the Japanese authorities to do so, but that was not the case. All representations to the Japanese Government have been without success and, moreover, the recent court case there failed.
The Japanese argument. which has been reiterated many times outside and inside Parliament, is that the 1951 San Francisco treaty concluded the matter and that there was no need for the British authorities to continue to raise the issue. The treaty awarded a maximum of £76—some people received less—to former British POWs. That sum nearly 50 years ago was obviously worth more than it is today, but at most it was equal to eight to 10 weeks' average pay. It was totally inadequate, and no one could say otherwise.
The situation has moved on somewhat. On 3 May, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House that former POWs had told him about the appalling suffering that they had endured. He said:
They are immensely brave people, to whom we owe a great debt.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 143.]
Indeed, we do owe them a great debt, and their contribution to our allied victory in 1945 can never be forgotten. It was encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend say that he and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence had met the Royal British Legion and agreed to reconsider the issue of compensation for former POWs. It is understandable, in response to a question on the Floor of the House and, indeed, to a later question, that my right hon. Friend wanted to make it clear that he was not making a commitment, but his assurance is the closest that we have come to a Minister—and the most senior of Ministers at that—recognising that there is a case for the Government to consider. That was encouraging.
30WH
This debate is intended as a plea for no further delay in coming to a favourable decision, which is the wish of the House. Hon. Members divide on many issues, with disagreements between individuals and between parties, but there is agreement on this issue, if not on others; perhaps even among Ministers. There should be financial compensation to our fellow citizens who suffered so much at the hands of the Japanese during the war.
The numbers involved are inevitably and sadly growing smaller. The longer the delay, the smaller the number of people who will receive financial recognition and compensation. That is why I asked for the debate. The House is to break for the summer recess by the end of July at the latest. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply favourably today and that the House will not go into recess with the situation outstanding and certainly not with a negative response from the Government.
The point has been made that the Government at the time could have done more long ago to press for further compensation from Japan. In May 1955, the then Minister of State in the Foreign Office, Lord Reading, took the view that the Government should not take advantage of article 26 of the San Francisco treaty. That treaty provided for further claims if Japan concluded agreements with other countries involving sums more advantageous than those originally agreed three years earlier. That was the position concerning Burma. The Government could have taken advantage of the situation at that time. They might not have been successful—who knows?—but at least they would have taken the opportunity. Lord Reading's point, which was not put into the public domain, was that the Government's pursuit of the matter would have been unpopular with the Japanese. What did he mean by that? Did we have a guilt complex? What would have made us more unpopular? Were we so unpopular in 1955? I find the decision somewhat odd but make no party point—the same decision was likely to have been reached even if another Government had been in power. However, the decision was wrong.
The Canadian Government have agreed to pay compensation to its former POWs held by the Japanese. That is welcome. I do not accept that such payments might lead to other claims by ex-POWs, which, I suspect, has been one reason why the Government have been reluctant to come to a favourable decision and to concede on the issue. What other claims would there be from former POWs? I have no reason to believe that those held by the Germans or those held as POWs in Korea are pressing such claims. The Germans treated Russian prisoners of war brutally, starving or beating them to death in some cases. However, they abided by the Geneva convention with regard to British prisoners of war. The Japanese did not abide by that treaty, having not signed it. The Government must come to a favourable decision on those matters.
I want to conclude by referring to two of my constituents and what they suffered during the war. I have mentioned the position of one of them before. The first case concerns Mr. Stephen Long, who was 19 when he was taken prisoner in Singapore. Like many others, Mr. Long was put to work on railway construction, known to POWs as the railway of death. On more than one occasion, he was given what was described as the

31WH
water treatment. He was squeezed into a box, where, for eight hours, he could not move at all. When he was dragged out, the Japanese soldiers forced a hosepipe into his mouth and then jumped up and down on his stomach for some time. That was the experience of so many people who were held by the Japanese. It is no wonder that Mr. Long has suffered nightmares since and feels such bitterness. It is no wonder that, when Mr. Long attended the gathering in 1995, he was so keen to receive an apology and would like to receive financial compensation. I do not know how long he has to live—I hope that it is a long time—but if compensation is to be paid, there is no reason why he should wait any longer.
Another of my constituents, Mr. John Mitchell, was a POW who worked on the Burma railway. He was made to work 12 to 18 hours a day. The prisoners were often subject to beatings and they were on a near starvation diet. As we talk about such immense suffering, let us also remember all those British POWs, our fellow citizens, and other allied prisoners of war held by the Japanese, who would receive no compensation whatsoever since they died at the time because of the ill-treatment and brutality that they endured.
The time has come for justice. The time has come for the British Government to make a payment in recognition of that suffering, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken and to which I have referred, and to concede that this is a special and unique case. Whoever must decide what should be done, whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury, I beg them—I use that word, which I do not usually use in Parliament—to make a favourable decision before the House breaks up for the summer recess.
12.12 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As hon. Members know, we addressed this subject only recently in the House in the debate secured by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber today. In that debate, he eloquently set out his request on behalf of those held as POWs in the far east during the second world war and surviving widows of deceased former far east POWs.
This further debate, secured by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), is a demonstration of my hon. Friend's support and concern for those held as POWs in the far east during the second world war, a cause that he has championed in the House on several occasions, both in debates and through various questions. That concern is widely held. Those hon. Members who are involved in all-party groups on this or related matters and hon. Members who have raised the matter on behalf of constituents have similarly championed the cause of those ex-service men, whose case naturally arouses sympathy. I congratulate my hon. Friend on gaining an opportunity to air again so soon the claims of that group for further compensation and I note the hope that he expressed in the House recently for a fresh and positive approach from the Government.
The Royal British Legion is also conducting a vigorous campaign in support of the claims of those men. Senior representatives of the Royal British Legion
32WH
met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a few weeks ago to discuss the matter, and I shall return to that meeting later in my speech. I regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was unable to be here today to address the issue, but he was already scheduled to conduct other ministerial business.
The question of compensation and support for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war is, as my hon. Friend said, dealt with by several Departments. My response today therefore embraces issues that also fall within the responsibility of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
The subject arises from the historical events of the second world war. With the fall of Hong Kong and subsequently of Singapore and other areas in early 1942, just over 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese. During that conflict, prisoners of war were in theory protected by the 1929 Geneva convention. Japan had not ratified the convention but said that in general it would recognise its provisions. However, as the world knows, it did not keep that promise. The prisoners of war of this and other nations were held in camps throughout the far east, where conditions and supplies varied. In almost all camps, even the best, conditions were demanding and often debilitating, particularly where prisoners had to carry out heavy physical work, often in terrible conditions. That. together with undernourishment, made them even more vulnerable to disease, as my hon. Friend graphically described. In addition to those factors, indifference and sometimes deliberately brutal treatment by guards took a toll on prisoners, 25 per cent. of whom did not survive their captivity. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the need to remember them as well as those who survived.
During the war, the British Government were unable to achieve much improvement in the conditions of the prisoners, but in the aftermath of Japan's defeat, in conjunction with our allies, they brought some of those responsible for the ill-treatment of prisoners of war to justice before allied courts. Furthermore, under the terms of the 1951 peace treaty, the former far east prisoners of war, uniquely, as a group, received some compensation from their former captors. In addition, the British made other funds available from Japanese resources, to which there was an entitlement under the peace treaty, to provide further compensation for the prisoners of war and some compensation for certain British civilian internees—another group who suffered grievously under the regime.
We fully accept that many people consider that the amount that became available in that way was too small. My hon. Friend mentioned the £76 maximum, which is roughly equivalent, in cost-of-living terms, to £1,200 today. Nevertheless, that payment established the principle of the responsibility of the captor for the proper treatment of detainees. That was at the time a firmly stated primary goal of the former far east prisoners of war and their organisations. Subsequently, as we know, there have been many calls for the Japanese to make further compensation payments. That is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, we have several times raised the

33WH
matter with the Japanese Government at the highest levels, reminding them of the strength of feeling that the issue arouses in the House and throughout the country.
Mr. Mark Oaten: Does the Foreign Office plan to continue to raise the issue of an apology in discussions with Japan?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next sentence. We have examined matters, including the responses of the Japanese Government, most carefully, and the clear legal advice is that the peace treaty many years ago closed the matter of further compensation from the Japanese Government. We have raised this matter with the Japanese Government at a range of levels, and that is the position that the Foreign Office has reached in that regard. Nevertheless, we continue to seek ways of achieving reconciliation between our two nations to overcome the legacy of past conflict and the associated feelings of those who suffered, who understandably may find it hard to be reconciled.
We are aware of the argument advanced in recent times that, in 1955, the British Government consciously let down the far east prisoners of war through their handling of the peace treaty negotiations and over the amount of compensation that was obtained as a result. Although we understand the feelings that lead to this view, which were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, that argument is not borne out by the evidence, which is based on the views and actions of the Conservative Government in 1955 in deciding not to seek to invoke article 26 of the treaty to claim more compensation on the ground that other countries had signed more favourable agreements.
Examination of the contemporary records that have been publicly available for many years shows that that decision reflected the fact that it was extremely difficult to ascertain what additional benefits, if any, this country would in practice be entitled to and what their worth might be, or whether, had the treaty been reopened, Britain would have received additional funds from Japan to enable individual far east prisoners of war to receive further compensation. It is perhaps a broader issue than the one outlined by my hon. Friend.
Linked to the claim about the 1955 decisions is the view that, as further compensation cannot be obtained from Japan, the Government should make an ex gratia payment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North will be aware, that suggestion represents a major shift from the position of those speaking on behalf of far east prisoners of war in the early 1950s, when the issue was thoroughly aired in public discussion and in the House. At that time, they made it clear that they were making no claim on the British taxpayer. Brigadier Smythe, a leading champion of the cause in the House, said:
On no account will they accept money from the British taxpayer. If it cannot be obtained from the Japanese, they do not want anything at all.—[Official Report, 10 May 1951; Vol. 447, c. 2223.]
We accept that times and views change and that the conclusions of the 1950s, which were based on the experience at that time, may not be the same today. Furthermore, many hon. Members and the Royal British Legion consider that recent payments by the Canadian Government to their former far east prisoners
34WH
of war, which amounted to some £10,000 each, and a motion in the Isle of Man's Tynwald, which proposes to make a similar payment to its small number of former far east prisoners of war, are precedents that should guide us in resolving this matter. Therefore, external circumstances have changed.
Although we understand that view, decisions of this nature are a matter for individual Governments and authorities to decide in the light of all the circumstances in their countries. Their decisions reflect the different ways available to them to address their citizens' needs. We acknowledge, and have always acknowledged, the harsh treatment and suffering that characterised detention for those held as prisoners of war in the far east and led to the death of some 25 per cent. of those in captivity or to ill health, which often continued following repatriation at the end of the war and which, in a number of cases, still seriously affects individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North drew attention to two moving cases in his constituency, but many other hon. Members can outline similar cases and describe the long-term physical and psychological impact of such suffering.
As hon. Members know, in this country the emphasis has been consistently placed on addressing the suffering and needs of those whose health has been adversely affected as a result of their military service, including any period of captivity—whether in the far east or elsewhere—primarily through the provision of war pensions by the Department of Social Security. Such pensions are available to the dependants of those who died during their service, or whose subsequent deaths can be linked to their service, and to those service men who have received a war pension since they left the forces because of the impact of their suffering on their long-term health.
Mr. Winnick: In reply to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on 3 May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, having met the British Legion to discuss this issue, said:
I make no commitment at this stage, but we told them that we would consider carefully the points and the representations that they had made, and we will do so.—[Official Report, 3 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 143.]
Will my hon. Friend tell us, working on the basis that a decision will be reached, whether his answer is final? I hope that it is not. Will the House be given the answer—yes or no—before the recess? As I have said, it is the wish of the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members that this matter should be resolved with a favourable decision.
Mr. Spellar: I am coming to the outcome of the meeting with the Royal British Legion in the next couple of paragraphs of my notes.
I shall complete my previous point by saying that people whose health disabilities from service have appeared or worsened later in life have received war pensions at that point. The special health needs and problems of far east prisoners of war are also recognised in the availability to them of special tropical disease investigations, so that problems peculiar to the far east, which might not otherwise be recognised as relating to their military service, can be picked up.

35WH
However, we are aware that, as hon. Members and the Royal British Legion have commented to us, the understandable perception of many British far east prisoners of war and their families is that the provisions that form the basis of the present support system through war pensions and health care do not adequately meet their needs. Although we believe that that judgment may be harsh, such feelings are a matter of concern.
My colleague the Under-Secretary of State heard those concerns expressed again at a recent meeting of the Royal British Legion, which he attended with the Prime Minister. During that meeting, the Royal British Legion, in setting out the case for additional compensation to be paid, described clearly the facts of the ill-treatment and suffering, and the subsequent problems that they have caused. Following that meeting in April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister assured the House, in the statement drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend, that, although he could make no commitment at that point, he had promised the Royal British Legion that the points and representations that they had made on behalf of former prisoners of war in the far east would be carefully considered.
That is what we are doing. We are re-examining the policy on far east prisoners of war, including the question of compensation. I mentioned earlier that, given the range of aspects involved, this subject concerns several Departments. We are, therefore, in touch with colleagues across Government to consider these points. We have not set any rigid parameters or ruled out particular solutions, but the consultation and consideration process is not yet complete. When it is, it will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I fully understand that hon. Members would have preferred me to give them further news or hints on the tenor of our considerations. However, as we have reached no conclusions, hon. Members will understand that it would be difficult for me to say any more at this stage. We look forward to being able to say more in the future. I shall draw to the attention of Ministers engaged in the consultation process my hon. Friend's request that an announcement be made before the recess. I cannot give him a commitment today: his views have been strongly represented, and I shall make sure that his message is relayed to those concerned.

Asthma
12.29 pm
Mr. David Amess: I begin by registering an interest. In common with many thousands of people, I suffer from hayfever. In my case, by the end of the hayfever season it will have turned into asthma. My first challenge to the Minister is to come up with a cure for hayfever, which would delight me and many others.
When I developed hayfever as a child, I was told that I would grow out of it, but I am nowhere near having done so. I have tried every medication available. I applaud pharmaceutical companies, which seem to produce a different nasal spray or tablet every year. I have had injections. I have been to a major hospital to be tested for allergies. On discovering that I was allergic to practically everything, I decided to forget it. Eventually, my wife, annoyed by my constant fits of sneezing, told me to go to the doctor to get it sorted out with the latest product on the market, with which I was injected using a huge needle. It made no difference whatsoever. I have even been to a Chinese herbalist. I faithfully followed the instructions for boiling up the leaves, but it tasted revolting and had no effect.
If the Minister is unable to come up with a cure today, she will do me a great favour if she can reassure me that she recognises that it is a real problem that causes misery to many people. Although I may appear to be perfectly fine at the moment, it can start up again at any time. The problem affects the quality of people's lives—for example, children taking examinations—and seems, for whatever reason, to be getting worse. People are developing it at all ages.
I want to concentrate on a call for national standards of health care for people with asthma. I pay tribute to the National Asthma Campaign, which I am sure all hon. Members regard highly and which is, as much as any organisation can be, above politics. It would like me, with another hon. Member, to highlight the issue with the aim of trying to find a solution.
We all have constituents who are affected by the problem. Regardless of their postcode or their medical condition, they should have the best possible treatment available. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that constituents who live with long-term medical conditions receive proper care. I accept that that has cost implications, but I would like to suggest to the Minister an idea that might not cost too much.
No one pretends that achieving consistent standards of care across the country is easy—it is difficult, but it is something for which we should strive. Unfortunately, many patients are bypassed as a result of where they live or because their illness is not on the Government's target list of health priorities. I understand why the Government target coronary heart disease and cancer. I tried to get stroke included on the list. Important as those conditions are, I hope that they will consider widening the terms of reference to include people with chronic long-term medical conditions, including asthma.
National standards of care are nothing without the expertise and impetus to implement them where it matters—locally on the ground, in health authorities

37WH
and in primary care groups and trusts. Although I am critical of primary care groups and trusts, the Government support them, and if they can run with this issue I shall be delighted.
The Government and the Minister should take the opportunity to give greater direction from the centre, ensure that local health care professionals recognise asthma as a long-term problem, which they do not always do, and provide the means for people with asthma to receive the quality care that enables them to take charge of their own condition instead of simply struggling on valiantly, as many do.
Mr. David Drew: I should declare an interest. I suffer from hay fever and, as a result, am asthmatic.
We welcome the asthma clinics that many surgeries now operate, although they tend to be for newly recognised symptoms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the biggest problems is that people who have had asthma for a long time think that they are using their inhalers properly but often need educating in better ways of treating themselves?
Mr. Amess: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Although such clinics do a superb job, like accident and emergency units, long-term sufferers, as he eloquently said, badly need this extra help. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that. If the clinics are to make an impact, national direction must be backed up by local initiatives.
The National Asthma Campaign, the independent United Kingdom charity, works as hard as it can, with others, on research to combat this problem, which is suffered by 3.4 million people. That is a huge number, which would fill 7,000 jumbo jets or sell out Wembley stadium more than 40 times. In my constituency 2,600 people suffer from asthma. which is one in 25 adults. More disturbing—I know that the Minister has a child herself—is the fact that in Southend, West one in seven children suffers from asthma, and in the rest of the country on average four or five children in every classroom will have asthma.
Apart from hay fever, the symptoms are difficulty in breathing, tightness of the chest, wheezing, coughing and sleepless nights. One feels absolutely miserable because one does not get a good night's sleep and wakes up feeling like death warmed up. Inflammation and constriction of the airways can be triggered by different things including tobacco smoke—something that I am not particularly enamoured with—house dust mites, pollen or even a sharp change in temperature. As many as 20 per cent. of people with asthma experience it so severely that they have to make frequent trips to hospital. As the national health service is under such pressure, it would be wonderful if we could make it unnecessary for people who have an attack to go to hospital.
More children miss lessons because of asthma than because of truancy. A National Asthma Campaign survey found that nearly a third of children with asthma miss more than a week of school because of their illness. According to Devon's health and safety adviser, 100,000 school days are lost in that county every year because of asthma, 10 times more than are lost through truancy. Large numbers of children are losing out on their education as a result of the failure of all of us, not just the Government, to help people with asthma.
38WH
Asthma does not simply affect children. As I said, I have not grown out of it yet. People from all walks of life and in all areas, rural and urban, suffer from asthma, and I am sure that every hon. Member has constituents who suffer from it. It is extraordinary that at the beginning of the new century asthma is on the increase, and no one seems to know why. We all have theories about it, but no one has come up with a convincing, well-tested explanation.
The number of children aged between five and 11 who reported an asthma attack during the past 12 months was three times higher than the figure for 10 years ago. A comparison of the health survey results for England for 1991 and those for 1996 shows that the percentage of people who reported attacks of wheezing or whistling in the chest increased last year from 16 per cent. to 21 per cent.
The Minister knows only too well that, unfortunately, asthma is not going to go away. The National Asthma Campaign tells me that, sadly, we are a long way from establishing the cause of the increase. The problem impacts on many people's lives. In broad terms, the cost of hospital admissions due to asthma is more than £50 million a year. We could use that money to train extra nurses.
More than 1,500 people die from asthma each year. A young man and close family friend who lived in my previous constituency died in tragic circumstances—no one could get to him when he was at the peak of an asthma attack.
Excellent initiatives are being carried out in some parts of the country. I am advised that Leicestershire—I believe that no hon. Member who is present has a constituency interest in this—has an effective local health improvement management plan. In Birmingham, the Small Heath primary care group, which is close to the constituency of one of the health Ministers, is working to improve local care of children with asthma by producing new standardised documentation that will be held in the child's medical notes. My own South Essex health authority has, according to a survey conducted by the National Asthma Campaign, recognised the importance of asthma in its HIMP. Such efforts are commendable, but the situation throughout the country is patchy. In some parts of the UK, health professionals pay only scant regard to the problem. The primary care groups offer us an opportunity to do much better.
We understand that there will be local variations, but such diversity should be reflected in the methods that are used to tackle the disease, not in the level and quality of care that is available to people with asthma. Treatment is currently a bit of a lottery, and we need national standards so that health professionals and people with asthma know what is expected of them.
I return to a point that I made eight or nine minutes ago: a small investment by the Government could solve the problem and promote a sea change in the way in which people with asthma are cared for and manage their illness. I welcome the fact that the Government identified the need for national standards in health care, but the delivery of those standards is currently inadequate. National standards would benefit our constituents by giving them access to better care and a benchmark against which to measure their experience.

39WH
They would also know that they would be treated similarly to patients elsewhere in the country. Will the Minister explain, either in her response or later in writing, when national standards might become a reality for people with asthma? National standards are vital if the present inequalities are to be ended.
People with asthma have the right to expect equal access to the best possible asthma care, which should be delivered by experienced and committed health professionals according to nationally agreed guidelines. What progress is being made in that regard? Specially trained health professionals should review the management of a person's asthma at least once a year. When a GP and a practice nurse share asthma care, the nurse should expect to have access to the best available asthma training and to regular updates—which is probably what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) had in mind. He also made the point that, when the severity of a person's asthma warrants it, prompt referral to a specialist should be provided as a matter of course. Young children, young people in transfer to adult care and elderly people with asthma should receive special consideration. I hate the expression "joined-up government", but the Minister will know what I mean with regard to the need for that kind of provision.
Scientific research has proved the safety and effectiveness of complementary therapies. I condemned Chinese medicine at the outset of my speech, but I am sure that all other aspects of such therapies are marvellous. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that. If appropriate standards were implemented nationwide, every person with asthma would be able to make informed choices about their own care.
Does the Minister agree that people with asthma have the right to expect care from the NHS on a broader basis? What are the Government doing to encourage health authorities to include asthma in their HIMPs? What instructions are being given to primary care groups? National standards are useless without effective mechanisms to ensure that they are implemented and monitored locally. It would be more than possible for the Government to establish national guidelines for asthma care relatively quickly. Some guidelines already exist, but they are somewhat out of date.
I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 676, supported by 91 hon. Members, which calls on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—of which I have also been critical, but, none the less, we have it—to update the British guidelines on asthma management as soon as is practicable. Will she also give us an idea of the timetable for revising and issuing new guidelines?
I congratulate those asthma sufferers who are able to control their condition, but that is not always easy. It is no wonder that people panic when they suffer a serious attack. Asthma currently costs the NHS about £670 million a year, including GP consultations and accident and emergency visits. That is an even larger figure than the £500 million that I mentioned earlier.
40WH
Finally, I shall leave the Minister with these thoughts. Any hon. Members who visit schools will be shown the headmaster's secretary's room. Nine times out of 10, the secretary will open the medicine cupboard, out of which will fall a variety of ventilators. Young people are our future. This is a real problem and I should be grateful if the Minister would take on board the points that I and the hon. Member for Stroud have made, and give us some hope for the future.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on raising the subject of asthma. I only wish that I could come up with a cure for hayfever. As a fellow sufferer, I have a personal interest in that, and would certainly derive a great deal of relief from such a discovery. I find that sea air helps, so perhaps additional constituency duties will help the hon. Gentleman with his condition during the worst time of year.
I shall respond to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made about asthma, which is a most important issue. It is the most common of all chronic diseases, affecting thousands of families every year. I welcome many of the points that he has made, and his support for Government action to introduce national standards and to tackle the problem of the postcode lottery in care. The Government feel strongly about that issue, and have set out a programme of action to tackle many of the variations in care across the country.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the prevalence of asthma has increased in recent years. In the mid-1950s, when the population was about 44 million, the first national survey of morbidity in general practice estimated that 380,000 people had consulted a doctor about asthma at least once. According to figures published in the document "Key Health Statistics for General Practice 1996", the prevalence of asthma in England and Wales was 6.7 per cent. for men and 6.9 per cent. for women. That amounts to as many as 3.5 million sufferers.
It is difficult to be precise about the trend, given variations in measurement, improvements in diagnosis and wide variations in the way in which figures are recorded, but it is clear that the number of cases of asthma has increased in the past few decades. As a result of improvements in diagnosis, drug development and changing diagnostic thresholds, more people are prepared to consult general practitioners to get prescriptions for asthma. Nevertheless, however one looks at the matter, the figures are going up, and that is a cause for serious concern.
For general practitioners and nurses, the increase is also very real. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) talked about services provided in primary care, and average general practice staff will see a tenfold increase in the number of asthma patients, compared with figures when the NHS was formed. Treatment options are now clearer. Beta 2 stimulants are used to prevent the potentially lethal symptoms of asthma in young children. As a result of such improvements, and

41WH
despite the increase in prevalence, the number of deaths for which asthma is the underlying cause is declining, and the number of patients requiring hospital admission is on the wane.
The number of asthma-related deaths in England and Wales fell from 1,700 in 1993 to 1,366 in 1998, and the number of hospital admissions also declined. The number of children who were admitted in that period fell by almost a third—from 47,700 to 32,000. Despite those changes and improvements, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that too many people are suffering. In particular, I share his concern about asthma among children. I join him in paying tribute to doctors, nurses and other health professionals who have done so much to make the improvements a reality, and to those patients who have taken responsibility for managing their own care. I, too, would like to mention the National Asthma Campaign, which has played a vital role in providing information and support to patients and their families for many years. It has been at the leading edge of asthma-related research, and it worked with the British Thoracic Society to establish important guidelines on asthma care.
Progress has been made, but there is still much more to do. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that asthma imposes substantial costs on the NHS. The NHS spends almost £500 million a year on GP-prescribed drugs for asthma, and the Government spend almost £4 million a year on research into asthma. The National Asthma Campaign estimates that a substantial number of working days—and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, school days—are lost every year through asthma. I am particularly concerned about the impact of inequalities in this regard. Often, it is the children of parents on low incomes who are most likely to die from asthma attacks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to making improvements by establishing national standards. The Government recognise the importance of national standards and the need to tackle the postcode lottery, and we have put in place measures to that effect. He also mentioned the national service frameworks for coronary heart disease and mental health, which have been published, and for older people and diabetics, which are still in progress. They are not simply about acute conditions, but include long-term chronic care issues and require considerable time and investment from the NHS and from experts and patient groups. In addition, we are working with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to improve the clinical effectiveness of health services.
The role of NICE is to ensure that, by identifying best practice, every patient in England and Wales has fair access to quality treatment. NICE will promote the uptake of successful innovations and will appraise treatments, both new and old, to ensure that there is good evidence to support their effectiveness. On asthma, NICE is carrying out an appraisal of inhaler systems, and its guidance is expected in the late summer. In addition, two major reports from our health technology assessment programme on inhaled steroids are expected
42WH
later this year. They, too, will provide the evidence base to supply clinical guidelines and better care for people with asthma.
The Department of Health is assessing a number of topics for possible referral to NICE in the next year. Clearly, NICE has a finite capacity and cannot look at every technology or intervention with evidence of variations in practice in the first year. No service anywhere in the world, no matter how it was funded, could do so. The selection criteria will include the potential impact on patient care, on Government priorities and policies and on NHS resources. The Department will also consider whether NICE is likely to add value. We are considering the programme of work for NICE for next year, and announcements will be made about that programme later this year. Unfortunately, I cannot pre-empt those announcements.
While NICE and the NSFs are vital steps forward, they are not the only way to spread best practice, provide high-quality care and tackle the postcode lottery across the NHS. Systems must be put in place across the board, not simply in priority areas or for asthma but in every area, to promote the rapid take-up of new technologies, to promote improvements and best practice and to ensure that that best practice is spread across the country. Those issues are being addressed as part of the development of the national plan. Experts and patient groups across the field are being drawn together to study the key priorities and ensure that the systems are in place to implement best practice, as the hon. Member for Southend, West described, and not simply to set national standards.
The national plan will set out the way in which we intend to use the record extra resources available to the NHS not simply to expand services but to reform them fundamentally. A key aim is to ensure that patients are at the centre of the process. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for patients to take responsibility and manage their own care. Last year, in the "Saving Lives" White Paper, we signalled our intention to introduce an expert patients programme to help those with chronic illnesses better to manage their health. The expert patients task force, which has been set up by the chief medical officer, will promote self-help and self-management for asthma patients and others and will ensure greater awareness among asthmatics of their condition. That is being done through a series of joined-up initiatives—that wonderful phrase that the hon. Gentleman used. That includes working not only with patients but also, as he said, with various aspects of the NHS, linking in-patients, out-patients, emergency care and primary care.
The health improvement programme is one way to do that. Its main role is to develop the programme to improve the health of the local population. We have highlighted key national priorities for heart disease, cancer and mental health, but local areas must look at their own strengths and weaknesses and at their needs and set their own priorities. We expect areas that have problems with asthma care to address them as part of the health improvement programmes. Many already recognise the needs of people with asthma.

43WH
The hon. Gentleman mentioned other examples. I know that primary care groups in Croydon and west Kent have identified asthma as a key local priority, and a scheme in Cornwall involves giving grants to councils to fund central heating and insulation improvements for homes occupied by families with children suffering from asthma.
To make a long-term difference, we must tackle prevention as well as treatment, which means taking action on smoking. That is why we have done so much to reduce smoking and have taken action in schools as
44WH
part of the national healthy schools programme and the national healthy schools standard to help pupils to understand and manage their own illnesses. We are also undertaking more research, because the hon. Gentleman is right: we must know about this illness and the difference that we can make.
We are addressing many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I hope that we shall continue to do so, because this is clearly an important issue for many children and families across the country.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Environment Agency on a possible extension of the salmon netting season in North-East England. [124985]

  Mr. Morley
  Following a debate in the House on 10 November 1999, I undertook to obtain advice from the Environment Agency on the implications of extending the salmon netting season by 20 days in North-East England. I emphasised that I would not wish to proceed with any measure that was not in the interests of salmon conservation. I also sought the Agency's advice on whether additional measures were needed to conserve large salmon in river fisheries in the autumn, particularly in the North-East.

  I have now received the Agency's advice, which I have accepted. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House. In summary, the Agency has advised that such an extension would substantially increase the level of exploitation of both multi-sea-winter salmon and grilse and would not be in the interests of salmon conservation. The Agency does not believe at present that there is an immediate need for further measures to restrict exploitation by either rods or nets in North-East England, and notes that half of the rod catch in North-East England in 1999 was released. Nevertheless, it will continue to keep the position under review.

  Farming (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial assistance has been given to the farming industry from European and UK sources in each year since 1990–91. [123988]

  Ms Quin
  The figures are set out in the table. Most but not all will be transferred to the farming industry. The farming industry also benefits from higher food prices as a result of the CAP, which are paid for by consumers.

  EU and UK expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies, 1990–91 to date

  £ million

  Year (April/March)

  Public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  1990–91

  1,910

  1991–92

  1,977

  1992–93

  2,028

  1993–94

  2,905

  1994–95

  2,512

  1995–96

  2,897

  1996–97

  4,318

  164W

  EU and UK expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies, 1990–91 to date

  £ million

  Year (April/March)

  Public expenditure under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies

  1997–98

  3,583

  1998–99

  3,482

  1999–20001

  3,172

  1 Forecast

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of claims under the over-30-months slaughter scheme for the period between 29 April and 25 May 1996 remain unresolved. [123435]

  Ms Quin
  In July 1999, the Agricultural Departments put in place arrangements for the Intervention Board Executive Agency to make ex gratia payments in respect of certain bovine animals, referred to as "Early Casualty Cases". These were casualty animals requiring emergency slaughter on welfare grounds, and which could not be presented onto the Over-30-months Slaughter Scheme between 29 April and 24 May (9 June in Scotland) 1996 solely due to the limited casualty processing facilities then available under the scheme.

  Applications for Early Casualty Case payment were invited during the period 23 July to 31 August 1999. The Intervention Board received claims for payment on 132 animals put down during the relevant period in 1996, and a written response has been provided to each of these. Therefore, no cases remain unresolved.

  Payment was made in respect of 115 animals. Eleven were found to be not payable, and six did not respond to requests for further information.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what payments were made under the over-30-months scheme in each month during the past two years. [123411]

  Ms Quin
  The number of animals slaughtered under the OTMS and the amounts of compensation paid in each month over the period are set out in the table. It is not possible to relate directly the compensation paid to the number of animals slaughtered in any month mainly because payments are generally made up to five weeks after the date of slaughter. Apart from the compensation payments, expenditure totalling about £115 million in 1998–99 and £130 million in 1999–2000 was incurred for services such as slaughtering, rendering, incineration, storage and transport.

  Year

  Animals Slaughtered

  Compensation paid (£000)

  1998–99

  April

  63,154

  17,058

  May

  66,980

  18,593

  June

  46,422

  17,469

  July

  53,341

  15,030

  August

  59,063

  13,705

  September

  84,996

  21,280

  October

  100,665

  23,282

  November

  110,831

  26,500

  165W

  Year

  Animals slaughtered

  Compensation paid (£000)

  December

  99,073

  33,030

  January

  94,287

  22,972

  February

  70,958

  28,938

  March

  70,092

  25,948

  1999–20001

  April

  70,658

  16,769

  May

  60,347

  18,489

  June

  64,213

  17,835

  July

  60,981

  16,007

  August

  65,758

  17,723

  September

  84,743

  15,662

  October

  104,612

  25,504

  November

  127,187

  27,391

  December

  96,509

  23,454

  January

  99,637

  26,471

  February

  88,452

  30,988

  March

  83,247

  28,626

  1 Provisional

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contact Ministers or officials have had during the last 12 months with the United States Department of Agriculture with the aim of lifting the ban on UK beef exports. [123136]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]My right hon. Friend the Minister raised the issue of the lifting of the US import ban on UK beef during his visit to the USA in February. The Chief Veterinary Officer and officials from our Embassy in Washington DC have also lobbied for the lifting of the US ban. The USA currently bans the import of beef from all European Union countries.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to introduce the outgoer and ongoer elements of the pig industry restructuring scheme; and what projection has been made of the funds to be allocated to each element in each of the three years of the overall scheme. [122990]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]Under state aid rules, the European Commission must approve the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (PIRS) before it can be introduced. To begin that process, the scheme was formally notified to the Commission on 30 March. The Commission has since carried out its initial study of the scheme and raised a number of questions; my officials have already answered these. The outgoers element of the scheme will be introduced as soon as possible following Commission approval. At present we are working towards introducing the ongoers element in early autumn. The outgoers scheme will operate using a sealed bid system, with the expectation that a good proportion of the £26 million plus the additional funds for which bids have been made will be available for the ongoers element.

  GMOs
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement on 166W
  GMOs and conventional crops of 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 473, whether any of the genetically-modified seeds contained the terminator gene. [123543]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]The genetically modified oilseed rape variety in question (RT73) does not contain the terminator gene.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will reply to the letter dated 21 February from the hon. Member for Stafford concerning Alex Nixon. [123773]

  Ms Quin
  I replied to the letter from my hon. Friend on 11 May 2000.

  Farm Incinerators
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of small incinerators used on farms. [123653]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department has made no such estimate. I understand that the National Farmers' Union considers the number to be somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000, but precise information is not available.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department is conducting into the relationship of cattle movements to the possible spread of bovine TB. [123909]

  Ms Quin
  The risk factors which may increase the likelihood of TB infection in cattle herds, including any relationship between cattle movements and the spread of the disease, is being studied through the analysis of epidemiological data. These data are being collected by MAFF through a detailed survey of farms with TB outbreaks.

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123841]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]Statistics from the annual June Census of Agriculture and Horticulture have recently been collated by parliamentary constituency. Our intentions are to place the information in the House of Commons data library.

  Staffing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has reached about the future of the regional service centres and the Intervention Board Agency; and what are the resulting changes in location and employment. [123897]

  Ms Quin
  No decisions have been made on the future of the Ministry's Regional Service Centres (RSCs) or the Intervention Board Executive Agency (IBEA) following the recent review of CAP scheme administration.
  167W
  The review concluded that we could offer a radically improved service to farmers and significant savings to taxpayers by merging the payment functions of MAFF's RSCs and IBEA and making better use of available technology. The case for restructuring, which will require new funding, is being considered in the context of the Spending Review 2000.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that he will not implement the recommendations of the review unless he is satisfied that we will be able to deliver clear benefits to public administration and to our client groups.

  Aspartame
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring the Food Standards Agency has undertaken of the number of people suffering an adverse reaction to aspartame; and how many cases have so far been reported of such a reaction, broken down by symptoms suffered. [124085]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products, and the Environment will be publishing shortly a review of adverse reactions to food and food ingredients, including food additives. Their report discusses the difficulties in establishing the true incidence and prevalence of these reactions and attributing an adverse reaction to a specific food or food ingredient. Additionally, the Food Standards Agency has recently commissioned a feasibility study of methods to monitor potential adverse reactions to novel foods and the outcome of this will help to establish whether, and if so in what form, a practical monitoring system might be established. A copy of the COT's report will be placed in the Library as soon as it becomes available.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Estate
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish his Department's Estate Strategy. [124931]

  Dr. Moonie
  "In Trust and On Trust", the Strategy for the Defence Estate, will be published tomorrow, meeting the commitment made by my Department following the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and it will also be placed on the worldwide web.

  The Ministry of Defence has consulted closely with voluntary sector organisations who have an interest in the defence estate and with the Government's statutory advisers. The Strategy will deliver a more efficient and effective estate and will serve to ensure that Ministry of Defence targets resources to the estate in the most effective way. This is a far-reaching document which will be of benefit to all those with an interest in Ministry of Defence's estate.

  CHOTS Project
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his letter of 25 January, D/US of S/PK PQ0057K/00/M, what are the total life revenue and capital 168W
  costs of the CHOTS project since conception, including upgrades one through eight; what further upgrades have been planned since March 1999; what are their estimated costs and completion dates; and if he will make a statement. [123647]

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

  Letter from A. J. Roper to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 6 June 2000:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the costs of the Corporate Headquarters Office Technology System (CHOTS) programme. As Chief Executive of the Defence Communication Services Agency, the CHOTS programme falls within my area of responsibility.
  The total life costs of the CHOTS programme since its conception in 1984, including upgrades, is estimated at £848.8M at current prices. This cost remains within existing Treasury approvals which cover the period until 2006.
  The last upgrade, known as CSV8 (CHOTS System Version 8), was completed on schedule in March 1999. Whilst no further major upgrades are currently planned, estimates include an assessment for ongoing technology refreshment of the system and a likely enhancement to cover the introduction of the Windows 2000 operating system. Beyond this, it is anticipated that CHOTS will form part of the Department's wider requirements for information delivery, to be met under a new Defence Information Infrastructure project managed by the Defence Procurement Agency under smart procurement principles.

  Iraq (No-fly Zones)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions coalition aircraft patrolling the northern no-fly zone in Iraq released ordnance between 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998 and (b) 20 December 1998 to date, stating in percentage terms (i) the nature of the threat, (ii) the category of the target attacked and (iii) the tonnage of ordnance released on each category of target in proportion to the overall tonnage released in those periods. [122846]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]I am withholding detailed information on the activities of other allies in accordance with Part II Section 1.c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The UK has never released ordnance over the northern no-fly zone.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions coalition aircraft patrolling(a) the northern and (b) the southern no-fly zone in Iraq hit targets other than the intended target between (i) 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998 and (ii) 20 December 1998 to date, stating what percentage this formed of overall attacks during those periods. [122848]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]The coalition only ever targets, in self-defence, Iraqi military facilities that pose a threat to its forces carrying out legitimate patrols of the no-fly zones. The coalition goes to exceptional lengths to ensure that the right target is hit, including the employment of very strict target clearance procedures and precision guided munitions. We conduct painstaking battle damage assessment after every bomb is dropped. For these reasons we are confident that, in the vast majority of cases, released ordnance by coalition aircraft lands on, or very close to, its intended target.
  169W
  I am withholding detailed information on the activities undertaken by other allies in accordance with Part II Section 1.c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The UK has never released ordnance over the northern no-fly zone.

  Between 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998 UK aircraft released ordnance on two occasions. On both occasions all of the ordnance hit the intended targets. Since 20 December 1998, there have been two occasions when ordnance from UK aircraft appears to have hit unintended targets. The weapons released on these occasions represent 1 per cent. of the total tonnage of ordnance released by the UK over this period.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total tonnage of ordnance released by coalition aircraft in operations to maintain(a) the southern and (b) the northern no-fly-zones in Iraq between (i) 1 August 1992 and 16 December 1998 and (ii) 20 December 1998 to date; and what is the monthly average in each of these periods. [122844]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]I am withholding detailed information on the activities of other allies in accordance with Part II Section 1.c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Between 1 August 1992 and 16 December 1998, UK aircraft released 2.5 tons of ordnance over the southern no-fly zone at an average of 0.025 tons per month. We do not have sufficiently detailed records of coalition activity over this period to estimate what percentage of the coalition total this represents.

  Between 20 December 1998 and 17 May 2000, UK aircraft released 78 tons of ordnance over the southern no-fly zones, at an average of 5 tons per month. This figure represents approximately 20 per cent. of the coalition total for this period.

  The UK has never released ordnance over the northern no-fly zone.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of coalition aircraft responding to threats in(a) the northern and (b) the southern no-fly-zone in Iraq between (i) 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998 and (ii) 20 December 1998 to date through (A) collateral damage, (B) attack on an unintended target and (C) malfunction of ordnance; and what percentage of attacks in the no-fly-zones resulted in civilian casualties in those periods. [122845]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]The coalition only ever targets, in self-defence, Iraqi military facilities that pose a threat to its forces carrying out legitimate patrols of the no-fly zones. The coalition goes to exceptional lengths to ensure civilian casualties are kept to the absolute minimum possible, including the employment of very carefully controlled targeting procedures and precision guided munitions.

  In practice, it is extremely difficult to give estimates of civilian casualties, despite the painstaking battle-damage assessment (BDA) that the coalition routinely carries out every time ordnance is released. However, we can demonstrate categorically that many of the Iraqi claims of
  170W
  civilian casualties are either exaggerated or wholly untrue. On a number of occasions the Iraqis have claimed that coalition aircraft have caused civilian casualties when allied aircraft have not released any munitions, or even been flying. The most recent example of this was on 17 May this year, when it seems very probable that the civilian casualties which the Iraqis claimed were caused by coalition activities, were in fact caused by an Iraqi air defence weapon. There have also been many instances when the Iraqis claimed civilians have been killed, where our BDA has clearly indicated that only military facilities were attacked.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions coalition aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly-zone in Iraq released ordnance between(a) 1 August 1992 and 16 December 1998 and (b) 20 December 1998 to date, stating in percentage terms (i) the nature of the threat, (ii) the category of the target attacked and (iii) the tonnage of ordnance released on each category of target in proportion to the overall tonnage released in those periods. [122847]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]I am withholding detailed information on the activities undertaken by allies under Part II Section 1.c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Between 1 August 1992 and 16 December 1998, UK aircraft released ordnance over the southern no-fly zone on two occasions. The nature of the threat on both occasions was hostile electronic activity. In both cases, ordnance was directed against elements of Iraq's Ground Based Air Defence Systems, posing a direct threat to coalition forces.

  Between 20 December 1998 and 17 May 2000 coalition aircraft were directly threatened by the Iraqi air defence forces on over 320 occasions. Aircraft responded in self-defence on 74 occasions against Iraqi military facilities posing a direct threat to coalition forces. Details of these threats, broken down by percentage, are as follows:

  Percentage

  Nature of threat

  Aircraft violations of southern no-fly zone

  51

  Anti-aircraft artillery/surface to air missile firings

  45

  Hostile electronic activity

  4

  Category of target attacked

  Ground based air defence system

  95

  Other military systems posing a direct threat to
  coalition forces

  5

  Tonnage of weapons released

  Ground based air defence system

  92

  Other military systems posing a direct threat to coalition forces

  8

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the Commander for British Forces in charge of(a) Operation Bolton, (b) Operation Warden and (c) preceding operations to maintain the no-fly zones in Iraq has requested authority from his Department to attack a target between (i) 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998 and (ii) 20 December 1998 to

  171W
  date, stating in each case (A) the date of request, (B) the category of the target, (C) whether authority was given and (D) whether the target was attacked. [122849]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]Commanders of British Forces operating over the Iraqi no-fly zones receive a directive from CJO that gives them highly detailed levels of delegated authority for target clearance.

  (a)(i) Between 1 April 1991 and 16 December 1998, the Commander of British Forces for Operations over the southern no-fly zone referred to the UK for authority to attack targets beyond his delegated authority on one occasion. This approval was granted. I am withholding further details of this operation under Part II Section 1.a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  (a)(ii) Between 20 December 1998 and 17 May 2000, the Commander of British Forces for Operation Bolton formally sought approval to attack targets beyond his delegated authority on four occasions. On each occasion approval was granted. I am withholding further details of this operation under Part II Section 1.a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  (b) The UK has never released ordnance over the northern no-fly zone.

  Training and Logistics Support
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what request his Department made to the US Government on the sale of training and logistics support to back up the lease of four Boeing C17 Transport Aircraft; what is the cost to his Department of this support and over what time it would run; and if he will make a statement. [124555]

  Mr. Hoon
  Further to my statement of 16 May 2000 in which I announced that it is our intention to lease four C-17 Globemaster aircraft to meet the Royal Air Force short to medium term airlift requirement: following termination of the original Short Term Strategic Airlift competition on 5 August 1999, the Ministry of Defence explored a number of options. These included discussions with Boeing and the US Government on ways of reducing the cost of meeting the RAF's requirement with a possible C-17 lease package. These discussions focused on the most cost-effective means of providing training and logistic support. Following our decision to lease four C-17 aircraft, a UK/US Government agreement has now been signed to provide C-17 training and training support services for the programme at an approximate cost of £8 million. A similar agreement will be put in place to cover the logistic support for the aircraft, but the details, including final costs, have yet to be agreed. Both agreements are expected to run for the full term of the aircraft lease.

  Army Cadet Death
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what persons are to be disciplined as a result of the events surrounding the death of Army cadet Claire Louise Shore; [124356]
  172W
  (2) what assessment he has made of (a) the report of the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the Army Board of Inquiry into the death of Army cadet Claire Louise Shore; [124354]

  (3) if he will ensure that the parents of Army cadet Claire Louise Shore receive a detailed personal de-brief of the Army's Board of Inquiry proceedings. [124355]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been a thorough investigation into this tragic incident by the Ministry of Defence Police, the Army's Training Accident Investigation Team and the Health and Safety Executive. The evidence from these investigations has been considered by the Crown Prosecution Service and by the Army chain of command and it has been found to be insufficient to support a prosecution under civil or military law, nor do they reveal any grounds for disciplinary action against any individual. They do, however, make criticisms of the organisation of the cadet camp and the training safety procedures. The Army accepts these criticisms and will accept the formal censure to be issued later this month. Action is in hand to improve these procedures.

  The Army's Board of Inquiry has not yet been completed. On completion, the Army will be happy to give a copy to Claire Shore's parents and to de-brief them in person.

  Military Bases (Foreign Personnel)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military bases in the United Kingdom where foreign nationals are based, indicating in each case, the(a) nationality and (b) number of individuals involved. [123759]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bonus Payments (Overseas Deployment)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have qualified for the bonus payments for overseas deployment under the recently introduced procedures; what delays in making these payments to service personnel there have been, and for what reason; how many claims are outstanding; and if he will make a statement. [124476]

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

  Advanced Composite Armoured Vehicle Platform
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to date of the work carried out to develop the Advanced Composite Armoured Vehicle Platform; what was the total budget provision and completion date for development and trials; and if he will make a statement. [124540]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total cost to the MOD of the Advanced Composite Armoured Vehicle Platform is expected to be £6 million, which is within the total budget provision when the programme started in 1993. The
  173W
  initial automotive trials have been successful and the development and trials process is expected to be complete in October 2000.

  Mr. Liam Clarke
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 462W, concerning the Metropolitan Police investigation of Mr. Liam Clarke, what were the times and occasions when complaints were made by him to the Metropolitan Police Service concerning alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Acts following the publication of articles in The Sunday Times concerning interviews by Liam Clarke and Martin Ingram. [124678]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]At a meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service on 8 September 1999 my Department raised its concerns that a breach of the Official Secrets Act may have been committed by Martin Ingram. Subsequent investigations have been a matter for the police.

  Wireless Transmitter Station, Stubbington
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what price the site of the former wireless transmitter station at Stubbington was sold. [124682]

  Dr. Moonie
  The price was £2.085 million.

WALES

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning the future of rural magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement. [124426]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had no such discussions with the Lord Chancellor.

  The Government consider that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provision of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in Wales, whether rural or urban, are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine, in consultation with the paying authority or authorities.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Pakistan
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her plans for provision of bilateral development assistance to Pakistan. [124773]

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards restoring the bilateral aid programme to Pakistan. [124564]
  174W
  Clare Short
  I have agreed to provide technical assistance to assist the Administration to prepare some of the key reforms which would enable the UK and multilateral institutions to re-engage in Pakistan.

PRIME MINISTER

  OSPAR Convention, Copenhagen
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister which(a) Departments and (b) Ministers will represent the Government at the forthcoming OSPAR convention in Copenhagen on 26 June. [124242]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The annual meeting of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic will be held on 26 to 30 June. It is a meeting of officials from the Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention, which Ministers would not normally expect to attend.

  Although the exact composition of the UK delegation has yet to be finalised, I understand it is likely to comprise officials from DETR and DTI.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of Greek participation in the Schengen Agreement on the future level of illegal immigration to Western European states by Albanian nationals; and what recent representations he has made on this issue. [123629]

  Mrs. Roche
  The evaluation of Greece's readiness to participate in Schengen arrangements was made by the existing Schengen stales, which did not include the United Kingdom. That evaluation covered the question of security of Greece's external frontiers. The Schengen arrangements, as incorporated within Treaty structures, provide for a continuing process of evaluation by participating states of adherence to the Schengen acquis, including the maintenance of the external frontiers of the Schengen area. The United Kingdom's participation in the Schengen agreement does not include external frontier arrangements and our participation in the evaluation process is limited to those areas in which we will ourselves participate. We shall continue to operate our own controls to tackle illegal immigration in the way that best suits our national circumstances. The Government have not, therefore, made any representations on this issue to European Union partners.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department will compile a list of those(a) elements of acquis, (b) working documents and (c) reports, pertaining to Schengen, to which his Department has to date not had access. [123622]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have had access to all the Schengen acquis as defined in Council Decision 1999/435/EC. Since the incorporation of the acquis into the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom as a member of the Council sees all Council working documents and reports.

  Kosovar Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Kosovo came to the United Kingdom under the United Nations humanitarian and medical evacuation programmes; how many are still in the United Kingdom; how many have claimed political asylum; and if he will make a statement. [123791]

  Mrs. Roche
  A total of 4,346 evacuees from Kosovo arrived in the United Kingdom under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme from Macedonia between 25 April and 25 June 1999, including 19 medical evacuees and their families. A further 109 Kosovans (26 patients with their immediate family members) have, so far, arrived on subsequent medical evacuation flights from Kosovo.

  As of 1 June, 1,527 of the evacuees had returned permanently to Kosovo under the voluntary return programme from the United Kingdom which began on 26 July 1999.

  Since March 2000, 241 principal applicants have sought an extension of exceptional leave to enter, 79 have applied for asylum and 90 have applied for both exceptional leave and asylum. These applications are currently under consideration.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for clearance to the United Kingdom there were in each of the last three years; and, of these, how many were(a) granted, (b) rejected on the grounds of Rule 320(18) of the UK Immigration Rules and (c) accepted despite the individual having relatively serious criminal convictions which would normally result in the application being rejected under Rule 320(18) of the UK Immigration Rules. [123584]

  Mrs. Roche
  Information on total grants and refusals of entry clearance applications overseas is given in Table 1. I regret that the other entry clearance information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Only some nationalities and categories of person need to obtain entry clearance prior to arrival in the United Kingdom. Information is available on persons refused leave to enter at United Kingdom ports and removed where the principal reason for the decision was taken under paragraph 320(18) of the Immigration Rules, and is given in Table 2. Information is not available on cases where the discretion allowed under the Rule is exercised, either with regard to applications for entry clearance or leave to enter.

  Table 1. Decisions on entry clearance applications made worldwide

  Thousand

  Year

  Applications granted

  Applications refused initially

  1997

  1,284

  81

  1998

  1,304

  85

  1999

  1,515

  100

  176W

  Table 2. Passengers refused leave to enter because of a criminal conviction and removed

  Year

  Number of passengers

  1997

  16

  1998

  15

  1999

  27

  Anti-terrorism Powers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to assess the number of persons detained at ports under anti-terrorism powers for less than an hour and variations year by year in the frequency of stops that fall short of the minimum duration required for the purposes of the formal recording process; if the Independent Assessor has powers and resources available to advertise his address in the Irish community press to facilitate making contact with individuals who may have relevant experiences to relate; and what measures he will take to form an independent assessment of the effect and perceptions of emergency legislation among the travelling public and Irish community in particular. [123957]

  Mr. Straw
  The Independent Review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has access to and speaks to the National Co-ordinator of Ports Policing who oversees the exercise of police port powers including any variations in the number of people examined.

  Resources are available to the Reviewer to conduct his annual review in the manner he thinks best, which can include placing advertisements in the Irish community press. It will be for any future Reviewer of the counter-terrorist legislation to decide the most appropriate consultation process and whether to invite specifically the travelling public to make known their particular experiences at ports.

  Children and Young Persons Act 1933
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were serving sentences under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 on 1 April for each year since 1997; and how many of them were serving their sentences in(a) local authority secure accommodation, and (b) Young Offenders Institutions. [123937]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information for offenders serving sentences under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 in Prison Service accommodation is for the end of June each year. It is as follows:

  Year

  1997

  759

  1998

  856

  1999

  862

  2000

  873

  Note:

  End March—provisional
  177W
  The available information for offenders serving sentences in local authority secure accommodation has been supplied by the Department of Health and is for 31 March each year. The numbers are as follows:

  Year

  1997

  96

  1998

  113

  1999

  88

  Note:

  2000 not yet available

  Liam Grogan
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be made on the repatriation of Liam Grogan to the Republic of Ireland, to serve the remainder of his sentence there. [123913]

  Mr. Boateng
  A decision regarding Mr. Grogan's application for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland will be made as soon as possible.

  Obscene Publications Acts
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964. [124177]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government keep the obscenity laws under general review and are determined to ensure that they remain effective in protecting the rights and freedoms of different people to have access to, and to be protected from, certain types of material. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 continues to provide a flexible regulatory tool, applying equally now to material published on the internet as it does to other media. Data for 1998 show that the Act continues to be effective with 196 prosecutions under the Act, 176 of which led to convictions.

  Video Classification
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has(a) to review the effectiveness of the Video Recordings Act 1984 and (b) to ensure the public accountability of the British Board of Film Classification and the Video Appeals Committee. [124178]

  Mr. Straw
  The Video Recordings Act 1984 requires that all videos, apart from a small category of exempt works, must be submitted to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) for classification. I am satisfied that, in general, the Act provides an effective means of regulating material released on video. I am concerned, however, about the implications of a recent High Court judgment for the small category of videos classified as suitable for sale only in licensed sex shops to those aged 18 and above (Restricted (18) videos).

  On 16 May, the High Court dismissed the BBFC's application for Judicial Review in respect of appeals against their decision not to classify seven sexually explicit videos in the Restricted 18 (R18) category. The Board had focused their application for Judicial Review
  178W
  on the possible harm which the videos might cause to potential viewers, particularly children. I am considering the implications of the Court's decision and intend to publish a Consultation Paper shortly to seek views on whether there are any additional steps that can be taken to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit material.

  Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, I am responsible for designating the authority responsible for classifying videos. I have so designated the President and the two Vice-Presidents of the BBFC. The designated authority is required to submit an annual report to me, which is then laid before both Houses of Parliament. I laid the report for 1999 on 24 May. Since his appointment as President of the BBFC, Andreas Whittam Smith has held two series of 'roadshows' in cities around the country as part of a dialogue with the public on classification policy. The Board is also conducting separate research surveys about its classification policy with members of the public.

  The Video Appeals Committee is responsible for considering appeals by distributors against the decisions of the BBFC. It contributes to the Board's Annual Report which contains a section on the appeals they have considered together with a list of all its members. Appeal hearings are also open to members of the public.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes (Kingston)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average c lass size in secondary schools in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames for each year since 1979. [123133]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The latest provisional estimates for January 2000 show that as few as 0.9 per cent. of pupils were in one teacher classes of over 35 pupils in maintained secondary schools in Kingston upon Thames local education authority area.

  Provisional national estimates of class sizes in maintained secondary schools in England were published in Statistical First Release "Class sizes in maintained schools in England: January 2000" on 14 April 2000. Information by local education authority area has been placed in the Library.

  The element within the Kingston upon Thames SSA which relates to secondary pupils of compulsory school age has risen from £19.44 million in 1997–98 to £22.70 million in 2000–01. Over the same period, funding per secondary pupil of compulsory school age in the local education authority has increased in real terms from £3,010 to £3,300. It is open to Kingston upon Thames to use some of these increased resources to employ extra teachers.

  In addition, schools in Kingston upon Thames received a total of £791,000 in direct grants in May 2000 as their share of the £290 million funding increase that was announced in the Budget of 21 March 2000.

  179W

  Average class sizes taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in the local education authority area of Kingston upon Thames: 1979–2000 (provisional)

  Position as at January

  Year

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Average class size

  2000

  7,970

  366

  21.8

  1999

  7,551

  359

  21.0

  1998

  7,584

  361

  21.0

  1997

  7,695

  381

  20.2

  1996

  7,563

  375

  20.2

  1995

  7,238

  362

  20.0

  1994

  6,844

  334

  20.5

  1993

  6,947

  352

  19.7

  1992

  6,849

  361

  19.0

  1991

  6,424

  346

  18.6

  1990

  6,192

  338

  18.3

  1989

  6,440

  356

  18.1

  1988

  6,797

  360

  18.9

  1987

  6,846

  346

  19.8

  1986

  7,262

  387

  18.8

  1985

  7,864

  396

  19.9

  1984

  8,132

  407

  20.0

  1983

  8,479

  407

  20.8

  1982

  8,641

  430

  20.1

  1981

  8,728

  425

  20.5

  1980

  8,836

  440

  20.1

  1979

  8,685

  432

  20.1

  Further Education
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education college lecturers transferred from the furthered education sector to the maintained schools sector in 1999–2000. [124173]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data on the movement of teachers from the further education sector to the maintained school sector are not available for 1999–2000.

  Teachers of the Deaf
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list(a) the funding made available in each of the last five years through the Standards Fund to help LEAs with the costs of training teachers of children with special educational needs, including training leading to the mandatory qualifications and (b) the amount and the proportion of that funding spent on mandatory training for teachers of the deaf for each of the last five years; [124466]

  (2) what guidance his Department gives to the Standards Fund to ensure adequate resources are available for mandatory training for teachers of the deaf; [124467]

  (3) what mechanisms are (a) in place and (b) planned, to monitor the amount and proportion of Standards Fund money allocated to support mandatory training for teachers of the deaf. [124468]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Expenditure supported under the Standards Fund relating to training teachers and others in special educational needs over the last five years has been as follows.180W

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  20

  1997–98

  17

  1998–99

  18

  1999–00

  21

  2000–01

  26

  Note:

  Total supported expenditure by English local education authorities, against which DfEE pays grant

  The Standards Fund circular makes it clear to local education authorities that support is available for courses leading to mandatory qualifications but the actual decisions as to how the funding is deployed are made by individual LEAs according to local needs. A breakdown for the period in question is not available. As to monitoring of expenditure, LEAs are asked to report on the overall number of teachers and others trained with the benefit of Standards Fund support.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the new financial arrangements on teacher recruitment in 2000–01; and if such arrangements will be available next year. [124510]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since the announcement of the new financial arrangements for teacher training, there have been 4,004 applications for courses of postgraduate initial teacher training, 27 per cent. more than in the same period last year.

  Expenditure plans for 2001–02 and beyond are dependent on the outcome of the current Spending Review.

  Guillain-Barré Syndrome
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school pupils suffering from Guillain-Barré Syndrome have statements of special educational needs. [124625]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available. However, a medical diagnosis of Guillain Barré Syndrome would not necessarily imply that the child has special educational needs. For most children with this syndrome, education provision will be made in line with the Department's guidance on the education of sick children, through to recovery. Special Educational Needs provision would, of course, be made for any child with significant learning difficulties caused by relapsing Guillain Barré Syndrome.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library audited accounts of education action zones to date. [124662]
  181W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Comptroller and Auditor General has so far placed audited financial accounts for the 1998–99 financial year in both Libraries of Parliament for 15 of the first round zones.

  Primary Schools (Access)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the population lives(a) within one mile of and (b) over three miles from a primary school in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas. [124670]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]It is not possible to answer the question as there are no centrally held data available.

  Performance Targets (Employment Service)
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what performance target levels will be set to ensure that the Employment Service achieves its aims and objectives in 2000–01. [124920]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Aim of the Employment Service is to help people without jobs to find work and employers to fill their vacancies. The Service makes a major contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to the Government's objectives of high and stable employment and growth, equality of opportunity and social inclusion. Its chief priority is to help individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. During the coming year it will be taking forward an ambitious programme of technological change and business improvement and will be preparing for the merger with the Benefits Agency in 2001.

  I am today announcing the targets I have set the Employment Service for 2000–01, which relate to its four key objectives.
  Vision and Purpose
  The Employment Service aims to make a major contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market and to the Government's objectives of high and stable employment and growth, equality of opportunity and social inclusion. ES works closely with employers and with its private, voluntary and public sector partners to provide a quality service for all people without a job and to promote employment opportunities for all who can work. It aims to attract a diverse range of vacancies and to fill those vacancies quickly by matching the right people and skills with the right jobs. Its chief priority is to help individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. It does this through correct application of the JSA regime, delivery of the New Deals and the pilot ONE service, and provision of appropriate information, advice, training and support. The Agency has achieved much over the past three years. The challenge and opportunity now facing it is to sustain continuous improvement in its services to jobseekers and employers and to make those services more accessible and relevant to customer needs, through effective use of modern technology and close working with a wide range of partners.
  Aim
  To help people without jobs to find work and employers to fill their vacancies.
  182W
  Objective A
  To help all people without jobs, and particularly those on welfare and at a disadvantage in the labour market, to find and keep work by providing appropriate information, advice, training and support and by encouraging employers to open more opportunities to them.
  Targets
  1. To help 178,000 participants in the New Deals and all Employment Zones into work, directly or in partnership with others
  2. To help 100,000 people with disabilities into work, directly or in partnership with others
  3. To help 295,000 disadvantaged jobseekers into work, directly or in partnership with others
  4. To help 735,000 people from welfare into work, directly or in partnership with others
  5. To help 1,325,000 jobless people into work, directly or in partnership with others
  Objective B
  To ensure that the rights and relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA and other benefits are fulfilled, while helping to combat fraud and abuse of the benefit system.
  Target
  To ensure that the relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA are fulfilled in 90 per cent. of cases checked.
  Objective C
  To harness new technology, the pursuit of excellence and continuous improvement to deliver effective, efficient and accessible services to all people without jobs and to employers in Jobcentres and, increasingly through other locations and means of communication.
  Targets
  1. To achieve a 90 per cent. customer service level for jobseekers
  Milestone Targets
  1. To introduce the Learning and Work Bank, new Labour Market System, touch-screen kiosks and a single national telephone number for employers by March 2001.
  2. To achieve a successful transfer of Work Based Learning for Adults to ES in England by April 2001.
  Objective D
  To deliver services to all ES customers in a way which respects individual differences, helps to overcome disadvantages due to ethnicity, gender, age or disability and achieves the best possible outcome for each of them.

  Two additional targets, for employer service and sustainable employment will be announced in July.

  Target levels for the Employment Service in Scotland and Wales, derived from the national targets, will be announced shortly.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the appointment of a Chair for the Learning and Skills Council. [124919]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has today appointed Bryan Sanderson as the Chairman (designate) of the Learning and Skills Council. Mr. Sanderson is currently Group Managing Director of BP Amoco plc and Chief Executive of BP Amoco Chemicals. Subject to the successful passage of the Learning and Skills Bill in Parliament, the appointment will be confirmed in July.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Industry Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Industry Council held in Brussels on 18 May; and if he will make a statement. [123439]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe represented the UK at the EU Industry Council held on 18 May.

  The Council had a debate on competitiveness, focusing on the follow-up actions from the Lisbon European Council and broad consensus was reached on the challenges ahead. There was agreement that the new Multi-Annual Programme should concentrate resources where they could benefit SMEs generally and should be adopted by the end of this year. There was also widespread support from member states for adoption at the Feira European Council on 19–20 June of a European Charter for Small Firms with concrete targets and actions.

  Several delegations pointed out the need to benchmark Europe's performance against the best in the world to foster a new enterprise policy and the need for greater co-ordination of all the current EU benchmarking exercises.

  The Commission introduced the results of the second report on the situation in world shipbuilding, highlighting the continued problems faced with Korea, and progress made on the "Agreed Minutes" with Korea in an attempt to address this situation. It was agreed that discussion should continue with Korea as a matter of urgency on unfair trade practices and that continuation of operating aid beyond the end of this year in the EU would not resolve these problems. The Council asked the Commission to make a further report by the end of September.

  The Commission reported on follow up to the conclusions on integrating sustainable development into EU policy which were agreed at the Helsinki European Council last year and its recent communication on integrating sustainable development into the EU non-energy mining industry.

  The Commission gave progress reports on the modernisation of competition rules, the impact of electronic commerce on the automotive industry and the future of the European Observatory for Textile and Clothing. It also presented its: eighth survey of state aid; twenty ninth report on competition; monitoring report on restructuring aid to the steel sector.

  The Council adopted conclusions on: information and communication technologies and traditional sectors; the state of competitiveness of the steel industry in the EU; and concerted action with the member states in the field of enterprise policy.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to strengthen the arrangements in place to protect consumers from fraudulent claims made in advertisements, with particular reference to the penalties which can be brought to bear on those making such claims; and if he will make a statement. [124084]
  184W
  Dr. Howells
  I am satisfied that the 1988 Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations, together with the self-regulatory system operated by the Advertising Standards Authority for advertisements in the non-broadcast media, are effective in controlling misleading advertising in the United Kingdom.

  In respect of false or misleading claims more generally, the White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" announced that the Government are considering strengthening the Trade Descriptions Act 1968—which applies to both advertisements and on-pack claims—by making misleading claims about services an offence of strict liability, as is already the case for goods, and by introducing new provisions to cover the future supply of services and false or misleading statements made by traders about a consumer's own property—for example the need for remedial work. The Trade Descriptions Act includes criminal penalties.

  Research (Gender Balance)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy towards promoting gender balance in research, with particular reference to those areas funded by European Community moneys, following the ETAN report of the European Parliament. [123649]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are very keen to increase the participation of women in research. The Promoting SET for Women Unit, within the DTI works with the Research Councils, the Higher Education Funding Councils, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals to encourage more women to apply for research funds and for membership of the Framework programme expert and advisory bodies. The Unit Head is a member of a Commission working group to help achieve these aims.

  OECD Convention on Bribery
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the OECD peer group review of the UK concerning the OECD convention on bribery. [123974]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The Phase 1 evaluation report of the UK under the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions will be made public, along with the reports of all other countries so far reviewed, at the OECD Ministerial meeting at the end of June, as agreed by OECD members.

  Ethnic Minority Business Forum
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Ethnic Minority Business Forum will address the needs of the ethnic minority business community. [124384]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department is setting up an ethnic minority business forum so that we can find out at first hand the particular needs and concerns of ethnic minority entrepreneurs. With the benefit of the experience of members of the Forum, we hope we will be able to better tailor our policies and support to overcome these concerns and improve the competitiveness of this important sector of our economy.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to introduce legislation on late payment of accounts by companies. [124749]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 was introduced on 1 November 1998 and provides businesses with a statutory right to claim interest on late payment of commercial debt. The legislation is phased and for the first two years—1 November 1998 to 31 October 2000—small businesses can claim interest from large businesses and the public sector.

  The Government propose to extend the right to claim interest from 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2002, so that small businesses will also be able to claim interest from other small businesses on debts incurred under contracts agreed after that date. From 1 November 2002 it is proposed that all businesses and the public sector will be able to claim interest from all businesses and the public sector on debts incurred under contracts agreed after that date.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988; and if he will make a statement. [124674]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department is undertaking research to evaluate whether the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988 have been successful in reducing the number of lives lost and serious injuries suffered as a result of furniture fires.

  I plan to publish this research at the end of June 2000 and copies will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Miners Compensation Schemes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the second stage tests to be available in the North East of England for chronic bronchitis and emphysema under the miners compensation schemes. [123760]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The two spirometry centres based in Newcastle and Durham have been converted to carry out in full the Medical Assessment Process and the first MAP appointments have now been made.

  Research Funding
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to increase funding for research leading to innovation in public bodies and private companies. [124494]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The Government's first Comprehensive Spending Review resulted in an additional £1.0 billion support over three years for the public science and engineering base. A unique partnership with the Wellcome Trust increased this to £1.4 billion, of which £0.75 billion has been used to renew university research infrastructure through the Joint 186W
  Infrastructure Fund. In addition the DTI's Innovation Budget is being increased by some 20 per cent. over three years to fund a number of programmes designed to drive forward a fundamental change in innovation performance in the UK. This includes for example the Smart scheme which supports R&D activities in private small and medium-sized companies and is being expanded and extended over the period 1999–2002, and the technology transfer scheme known as TCS, for which DTI is doubling its expenditure.

  These and other relevant schemes are being considered in the current Spending Review. The Government are also working toward publishing a Science and Innovation White Paper later this year, which will set out our policies in this area.

  Nuclear Fuel (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is in respect of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. [124232]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The Government's policy on spent fuel management is set out in United Kingdom Civil Nuclear Policy Including Plutonium, which was presented to the House in January 1998.

  Performance Targets (Employment Tribunals Service)
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set the Employment Tribunals Service for 2000–01. [125066]

  Mr. Byers
  I have set the following targets for the Employment Tribunals Service for 2000–01:to bring to a first hearing at least 85 per cent. of single employment tribunal cases within 26 weeks of receipt;
  in relation to the above target, all employment tribunal offices to achieve at least 75 per cent.;
  to issue at least 85 per cent. of decisions within four weeks of the final hearing;
  to reduce administrative unit costs in the employment tribunals by 5 per cent. in real terms;
  at least 85 per cent. of employment tribunal users to express satisfaction, in surveys, with the service offered by ETS;
  at least 90 per cent. of appeals registered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal for preliminary hearing to be ready for listing within six weeks.

  Postal Services Commission
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce the membership of the Postal Services Commission. [125067]

  Mr. Byers
  Mr. Robin Aaronson, Mr. Tony Cooper, Ms Julia Kaufmann OBE, Ms Janet Lewis-Jones, and Mr. Ken Olisa are b sing appointed as members of the Postal Services Commission. They start work immediately. It is anticipated that they will be appointed as members of the statutory body of the same name that is expected to be created following the passing of the Postal Services Bill currently before Parliament. The appointment of the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Graham Corbett CBE,
  187W
  was announced on 16 March and that of the Chief Executive, Mr. Martin Stanley, on 15 January. This completes the membership of the Commission.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Clean Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what use he has made of the report entitled "Cleaning, Up? Stimulating Innovation in Environmental Technology", produced by POST in respect of his Department's support for the Joint Environmental Market Unit's work on promoting British clean technology commerce; and if he will circulate the report to British Embassies. [122816]

  Mr. Hain
  As the report has only just been published, my officials will consider with other Departments its implications for the promotion of UK exports of environmental technology. More generally, I am keen to make full use of our Missions overseas in promoting such exports.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the single currency games shown in InfEuro Number 14, the Commission newsletter, were created with the assistance of the European Community; and if he will make a statement. [123619]

  Mr. Vaz
  The single currency games referred to by the hon. Member were the result of the work of the children and teachers of the "Nos Enfants" school in Brussels, as well as the "Informer et Enseigner L'Europe et la Democratie", the "Orrizonti" company and the Economic and Social Committee. The project received funding from the Commission, Generale de Banque, Instituto Bancario San Paolo die Iorino and Mouvement E Leclerc, as well as the support of the European Parliament, Credit Mutuel, and the Fondation du Credit Mutuel pour la Lecture.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he made during discussions on the agreement of the Lomé Peace Accord on Sierra Leone, with respect to the(a) freeing of, (b) participation in politics of and (c) rescinding the death penalty passed on Foday Sankoh; [123608]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his role in the establishment of the Lomé Peace Accord on Sierra Leone. [123606]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 413W.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which three member states, referred to in the document, "Treaty of Amsterdam: What has Changed in Europe", have indicated a preference for extension of QMV before enlargement. [123616]
  188W
  Mr. Vaz
  "Treaty of Amsterdam: What Has Changed In Europe" was published by the Education and Culture Unit of the Commission. Therefore, I refer the hon. Member to the office of the Commission in London.

  EU Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 30W, on EU working groups, if he will make it his policy to ensure the maximum transparency for (a) draft documents without negotiating position commentary and (b) issues under discussion at European Union working group level. [123631]

  Mr. Vaz
  We will ensure that all documents being prepared in European Union working groups for decision by the Council will be submitted to Parliament in accordance with the established procedures for Parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many European Community documents were examined by EU working groups in the last 12 months; and, of these, how many were advanced as draft legislation. [123610]

  Mr. Vaz
  There is no comprehensive record of European Community documents examined in 1999. However, there were 43 pieces of legislation enacted by the Council and European Parliament in 1999. In addition, 284 legislative instruments were adopted by the Council, and 1,413 by the Commission. Draft versions of all of these will have been discussed either by Council working groups or Comitology committees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on democratic accountability within European Community working groups. [123609]

  Mr. Vaz
  Working groups are attended by national civil servants, who work within policies established by Government Ministers, who are themselves directly and democratically accountable.

  European Community (Lobbying Organisations)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to endorse the funding from European Community funds of organisations which exist to lobby the European Community; and if he will make a statement with particular reference to budget line A-3021. [123607]

  Mr. Vaz
  The funding supported by this budget line is financed from the Commission's administrative budget. This funding is long established and is supported by the European Parliament and individual member states where the organisations are located. The UK, however, seeks to keep such expenditure as low as possible.

  European Institute of Public Administration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 48W, if he will define Management of European Integration, with reference to the inclusion or otherwise of political education on the future shape of the EU. [123630]
  189W
  Mr. Vaz
  As stated in my previous reply, the EIPA supports the practical management of European integration through the provision of training, applied research and consultancy at a European level. The EIPA provides training, research and consultancy services for national and local governments to assist them in the implementation of EU legislation and guidance. Courses are either issue-specific (covering such issues as implementing better procurement practices or internal market legislation) or generic (for example, examining the European legislative process). Courses are practical and do not include political education.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those opinion formers who received free copies of Cm 4595; if they were sent copies without requesting them; what(a) deputations and (b) correspondence he received from opinion formers following receipt of Cm 4595; and if he will make a statement. [123612]

  Mr. Vaz
  Copies of Cm 4595 have been sent to numerous opinion formers in the UK. Posts overseas have also distributed copies as appropriate.

  Friends of Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer of 11 May 2000,Official Report, columns 452–53W, on Friends of Europe, if the Friends of Europe event charged for admission; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the subsidising of fund raising events by such bodies. [123633]

  Mr. Vaz
  Admission to the Friends of Europe event referred to was free. This was not a fund-raising event but a joint event aimed at widening discussion on contemporary European policy.

  European Commission DG Newsletters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit copies of European Commission DG newsletters in the Library in a readily accessible format. [123627]

  Mr. Vaz
  Those Commission newsletters intended for outside distribution are already readily accessible on the Commission's website (www.europa.eu.int).

  Informer et Enseigner I'Europe et la Democratie
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) activities and (b) public funding arrangements of Informer et Enseigner l'Europe et la Democratie, with particular reference to its role in the UK. [123620]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have no involvement with this organisation.

  European Federation of Retired and Elderly Persons
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what EU funding is awarded to the European Federation of Retired and Elderly Persons. [123651]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Commission's funding of such grants is published annually in its "Report on Beneficiaries of Part A Commission Grants". This report is freely available on the Commission's website www.europa.eu.int.

  India
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on India's gaining a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council; for what reasons this policy has changed; and if he will make a statement. [123727]

  Mr. Hain
  We are committed to early enlargement of both the permanent and the non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council, including the creation of a new permanent seat for the Asian regional group. We continue to maintain that it would be for the Asian group to decide who would occupy any permanent seat allocated to them. India would clearly be a strong contender. Our policy on this is unchanged.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2000,Official Report, column 111W, on the Intergovernmental Conference, how many copies of Cm 4595 have been distributed free; and how many were available for sale. [123908]

  Mr. Vaz
  My Department has distributed numerous free copies to opinion formers. The Stationery Office Ltd., who publish Command Papers under a contract administered by HMSO, are responsible for fixing the total print run. Initially, they printed 800 copies for sale but have since reprinted a further 200 copies to meet demand.

  Visit Visas
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit visas made in(a) India and (b) Pakistan were refused from 1 January to 30 April; and how many of the refused applications gave the reason for seeking entry as (i) attending a family funeral, (ii) attending a family wedding and (iii) visiting a seriously ill relative. [124462]

  Mr. Vaz
  The number of visit visa applications refused between 1 January and 30 April 2000 were as follows:

  Number

  India

  Bombay

  1,820

  Calcutta

  32

  Madras

  449

  New Delhi

  3,251

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  2,224

  Karachi

  1,392

  191W
  Detailed information on the nature of these applications is not centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with representatives of the Governments of(a) Ethiopia and (b) Eritrea about the war between these two countries; and if he will make a statement. [124499]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]As I told the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 577W, I last spoke to the Ethiopian Ambassador on 23 May about the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, when I strongly criticised Ethiopia's resumption of fighting with Eritrea.

  I will discuss the conflict with the recently arrived Eritrean Ambassador when he makes his introductory call on me on 8 June. I will reiterate our strong belief that only a negotiated settlement will bring a lasting peace to the region.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his arms policy towards(a) Ethiopia and (b) Eritrea. [124501]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 223W.

  Grand Cayman
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about environmental degradation of the mangrove swamp in the central area of Grand Cayman. [123000]

  Mr. Hain
  I have received a copy of a recent report from the Cayman Islands National Trust to the Governor of the Cayman Islands. This expresses concern that the Environmental Protection Fees have not been used to purchase areas of the central mangrove wetlands. It also raises the issue of an area of mangrove recently removed as part of a hotel development project. I have asked the Governor to send me a report on both issues and will write to my hon. Friend when that report is received.

SCOTLAND

  Green Transport
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122609]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]Key buildings are those with more than 50 staff where the Department is the main occupier. My Department has no buildings in this category and has not submitted green transport plans. We shall however be considering transport arrangements for the building s we occupy.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what reports he has received about the United States Government's proposals to ban the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether as a petrol additive within three years; and if he will make a statement; [123446]

  (2) what recent discussions his Department has held with counterparts in the United States on methyl tertiary butyl ether; and if he will make a statement. [123447]

  Mr. Hill
  No reports have been received from the United States Government. However, officials are in regular contact with their US counterparts and discuss issues such as MTBE. We are aware of the issues surrounding its use in the United States.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the EU's policy is on the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether. [123441]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no overall EU policy on MTBE use other than to restrict quantities of oxygenates that may be added to petrol. In particular EU directive 98/70/EU sets a limit of 15 per cent. on ethers containing five or more carbon atoms per molecule—which includes MTBE. Finland are carrying out a full life cycle risk assessment of MTBE under the European Communities Existing Substances Regulation (793/93/EEC) in order to decide whether any further measures are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. The draft risk assessment is due to be discussed in depth for the first time by the EU technical experts in June this year.

  Dagenham Ford Plant
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with the Greater London Authority regarding the future of the Dagenham Ford plant. [123513]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has lead responsibility within Government concerning the Dagenham plant, announced on 12 May a 10-point plan for regeneration, based on high quality training, support for setting up small businesses, developing modern manufacturing and attracting inward investment. The Employment Service is working closely with Ford to support Dagenham workers and to ensure that the effects on the local economy are minimised.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had earlier met the Mayor of London on 8 May. They agreed to work closely together to secure the best possible outcome for the workforce at Dagenham and for the wider community.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with building contractors about the future construction of incinerators in the United Kingdom. [123485]
  193W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]The Government have not held discussions with building contractors about the future construction of incinerators. The development and construction of energy from waste and incineration plant is a matter for local authorities and the waste management industry.

  Registration Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on displaying registration numbers on plates marked with the European Union sign and GB; and if he will make a statement. [123726]

  Mr. Hill
  Following two consultation papers, the Government announced on 30 March that motorists could, if they wished, display the insignia of the European Union together with the letters GB on their number plates, in

  Investment in social housing in Colchester

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–013

  Allocations to Colchester Borough Council

  Total

  3.921

  3.559

  2.604

  3.107

  3.250

  4.449

  Housing annual capital guideline

  2.839

  2.575

  1.377

  1.087

  1.176

  4.189

  Private sector renewal grants1

  1.082

  0.984

  0.558

  0.516

  0.508

  —

  Disabled facilities grants1

  0.252

  0.238

  0.235

  0.260

  Capital receipts initiative

  —

  —

  0.417

  1.266

  1.331

  —

  Allocations to registered special landlords

  Approved development programme2

  2.634

  2.743

  1.150

  1.731

  1.257

  1.398

  1 Support for private sector renewal and disabled facilities grants was provided through a combined single allocation in 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  2 The figures up to 1999–00 are for grants paid; the 2000–01 figures is for schemes approved.

  3 Allocations for the Capital Receipts Initiative and support for private sector renewal grants are included within the housing Annual Capital Guideline allocation for 2000–01.

  CITES-listed Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make representations to other EU member states on recording seizures of CITES-listed animals and their products by weight and number; and if he will make a statement. [124049]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following the CITES Adjournment debate on 21 March 2000 in Westminster Hall, when I was asked to examine whether ivory seizures should be recorded by weight as well as number, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) to let her know that the Government would ensure that future seizures were so recorded. I also informed her that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise had already taken steps, in response to other requests, to ensure that seizures of other high profile endangered species goods such as coral or caviar are also recorded by weight.

  Although the CITES Convention is implemented within the European Community by way of EU Regulation, the specific method employed to record CITES seizures is a matter for Member States to determine individually. However, since it certainly makes sense for the European Union to employ uniform, or at least similar, reporting regimes, we will raise this issue at the next meeting of the EU's CITES Enforcement Working Group in September.
  194W
  which case vehicles would no longer have to display the "GB sticker" when travelling in Europe. Regulations to bring this into effect from 1 March 2001 will be laid shortly.

  Social Housing (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been invested in social housing in the Colchester constituency in each of the last five years for which figures are available; how much will be provided for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [123656]

  Mr. Mullin
  Details of the capital allocations for housing investment in Colchester Borough Council area in the current and previous five years are set out in the table. The allocations are additional to any housing investment financed from the authorities own resources.

  Hydrocarbon Gases
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safety standards are in p1ace to regulate the use of hydrocarbon gases in refrigeration systems; when they were introduced; and what the safety record has been since their introduction. [122858]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]There is no safety legislation that applies exclusively to the safety of hydrocarbon gases in refrigeration systems. Employers using such a system would have duties under general legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA), the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 to ensure the health and safety of anyone who may be affected by their undertaking. In addition, employers and others may have duties specifically in respect of risks from equipment or dangerous substances in other legislation including:the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992
  the Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999
  the Pressure Systems (Safety) Regulations 2000
  the Highly Flammable Liquids and Liquefied Petroleum Gases Regulations 1972
  the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1999
  the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997.
  195W
  A British Standard 4434:1995 "Specification for safety and environmental aspects in the design, construction and installation of refrigerating appliances and systems" is intended to minimise possible hazards from all types of refrigerating appliances, systems and ancillary equipment. The first part of a European Standard (PREN 378) "Refrigerating systems and heat pumps: Safety and environmental requirements" has come into force and partially replaces BS:4434.

  British Standard BS EN60335–2–24 "Safety of household and similar electrical appliances" published in November 1999 covers all safety aspects of refrigerators, freezers and certain ice-makers intended for use in domestic and similar applications, including camping, touring caravans and boats for leisure purposes.

  Statistical information is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether any reported incidents in the home or at work involved hydrocarbon gases in refrigeration systems.

  Byker Heat Station
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the sites at which toxic ash from Byker Heat and Transfer Station, Newcastle, was spread in contravention of the operating licence; when this contravention was first reported to the Environmental Agency and when action was taken to correct it; and if the remedial action has been completed at all locations; [123748]

  Byker CHP plant ash deposit sites (tonnes)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Total

  Bridleways

  Big Waters

  —

  —

  10

  20

  —

  —

  30

  Blaney Row

  —

  —

  —

  30

  10

  —

  40

  Coach Lane, Throckley

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Coronation Road

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Dinnington Recreation Ground

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Feversham

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  80

  NE Mason Farm

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  80

  Newburn Riverside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  40

  Reith Burn, Throckley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Stamfordham Road

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Three Hills

  —

  100

  —

  40

  —

  —

  140

  UFAMS, Newburn

  —

  —

  80

  10

  —

  —

  90

  Walbottle Dene

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Allotments

  Blaney Row

  —

  —

  —

  10

  30

  10

  50

  Blutcher

  —

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Braxton B

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  30

  Irish Brickfields

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20

  Brunswick

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  20

  Christen Road

  —

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  100

  Coxlodge

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Denton Bank

  20

  —

  —

  30

  —

  —

  50

  Denton Dene

  30

  30

  30

  10

  —

  10

  110

  Fenham Model

  30

  60

  40

  10

  —

  10

  150

  Hulne Terrace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  10

  Jesmond Premier/Vale

  20

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  Keebledale Pigeons

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  10

  Little Moor

  —

  20

  —

  10

  20

  —

  50

  Ridgewood Crescent

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  40

  Salter Lane

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  St. Anthony's

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  196W
  (2) what investigations have been made, and what conclusions have been reached, by the Environment Agency about soil, plant and animal contamination at Byker City Farm, Newcastle; what caused those investigations to be made; and when they started. [123851]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]The Byker Reclamation Plant is the subject of two Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) authorisations issued by the Environment Agency under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. While the IPC authorisation for the Heat Station provides that landfill is the preferred waste disposal option for ash from the plant, disposal by another means is not in contravention of the authorisation. This is because the disposal of waste is subject to the duty of care and the waste management licensing provisions of Part II of the 1990 Act, and section 28 of the Act provides that no condition shall be attached to an IPC authorisation to regulate the final disposal of waste.

  The possibility that ash from the plant might have been used for the construction of footpaths and other purposes was first raised by a local resident during discussions with the Environment Agency on another mater in August 1999. At a public meeting organised by Newcastle City Council on 19 January 2000, it was confirmed by the City Council that sampling would be undertaken to establish the composition of the ash. The Environment Agency then wrote to the City Council's direct works contractor, "Cityworks", on 2 February to request details of the dates, locations and quantities of ash used for the construction of footpaths etc. The sites which have identified as receiving ash from the Heat Plant, and the estimated tonnages, are as follows:

  197W

  Byker CHP plant deposit sites (tonnes)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Total

  St. Michaels A

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  St. Michaels B

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Union Hall Road

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Walkergate Hospital

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Walkergate 3A

  —

  20

  20

  20

  —

  10

  70

  Walkergate 3B

  10

  —

  70

  10

  —

  10

  100

  Westmacott Street

  30

  30

  20

  20

  —

  —

  100

  Whinneytield Road

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Moorside

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  10

  50

  Nun's Moor

  20

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  40

  Other sites

  Leightwood Avenue

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Murton Riding School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  40

  Annfield Plain

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  30

  1 Not known

  Newcastle City Council has undertaken the removal of the ash from these sites and its disposal is being supervised by the Environment Agency. I have been informed that the removal of the ash from all of these sites has now been completed but that further investigations will be carried out by the City Council to ascertain whether any further remedial action is required.

  The Environment Agency is conducting an investigation to establish whether the waste management controls of Part II of the 1990 Act have been contravened and, if there is evidence of contravention, action will be taken in line with the Agency's published Enforcement Policy.

  To date, no investigations have been carried out by the Environment Agency into possible contamination at Byker City Farm.

  Newcastle Great Park Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Environment Agency has made of the likelihood of storm flow and storm sewer overflow, into Jesmond Dene and Ouseburn, Newcastle; and what the likelihood will be if the Newcastle Great Park scheme in its present form is fully developed. [123852]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]I understand from the Environment Agency that improvement work has been carried out to intermittent discharges that can, under storm conditions, discharge diluted sewage to the Ouse Burn. These improvements are at Acomb Crescent on the Red House Farm Estate and Three Mile Inn at Gosforth. Further improvement works on the Lower Ouse Burn at Byker are at the design stage. Other sources of contamination include the de-icing run-off from Newcastle Airport which has affected the entire length of the Ouse Burn. The Agency has developed a scheme with the Airport and Northumbrian Water that now conveys the run-off to Howden sewage works for treatment, with notable water quality improvements.

  Potential sources of pollution from Newcastle Great Park have been pre-empted by the Agency at the planning stage. The developers have been encouraged to incorporate Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) into their proposals which will mean that water quality will be maintained or perhaps even improved if the
  198W
  development goes ahead. However, the Agency will not hesitate to take the appropriate enforcement action should pollution arise from any aspect of the development.

  Welland Valley
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to designate the Welland Valley up and down stream from Market Harborough an area of outstanding natural beauty; and if he will make a statement. [123904]

  Mr. Mullin
  Designation of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) is the responsibility of the Countryside Agency, subject to confirmation in each case by the Secretary of State. I am not aware of any plans by the Agency to designate the Welland Valley as an AONB.

  Bilateral Aviation Agreements
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy on reciprocity in bilateral air service negotiations with the United States of America. [123931]

  Mr. Mullin
  Bilateral air services agreements are based on the principle of fair and equal opportunity, and this requires that rights are granted reciprocally. The UK-US negotiations are conducted in accordance with this same principle.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to remove distortions of competition as part of a bilateral airline agreement with the United States of America. [123932]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have consistently pressed the US Government for effective access to the US domestic market for UK airlines so that there can be fair competition on UK-US routes.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what methodology the Government are adopting in seeking to secure wet leasing rights for British airlines in the US market(a) as part of bilateral aviation negotiations and (b) through international agreements. [123933]
  199W
  Mr. Mullin
  We take every opportunity to press the United States Government to relax the restrictions that they impose on the wet-leasing of UK-registered aircraft by US carriers.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government intend to achieve reciprocal access to the US aviation market for British charter passenger airlines and cargo carriers for whom alliances with scheduled US airlines are not an option. [123934]

  Mr. Mullin
  UK charter passenger airlines already have reciprocal rights under the Bermuda II arrangements, and dominate the UK-US charter market. We continue to press the US Government to open up their domestic market to UK cargo carriers.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the consents under which the genetic transformation RT73 has been released in the UK. [123758]

  Mr. Meacher
  (holding answer 25 May 2000]Genetic transformation event RT73 is associated with glyphosate tolerant oil seed rape. Consents which contain RT73 are 200W

  Date

  Court

  Offence

  Fine (£)

  10 July 1990

  Hailsham MC

  Causing sewage to enter a stream at Willingdon

  1,200 and 1,070 costs

  10 January 1992

  Maidstone MC

  Causing sewage to enter a tributary of the River Beult at Headcorn

  500 and 650 costs

  22 January 1992

  Maidstone CC

  Causing effluent to enter the River Stour

  1,000 and 3,340 costs on appeal from Ashford MC

  11 February 1992

  Sevenoaks MC

  Causing sewage to enter a tributary of the River Medway at Penshurst

  1,500 and 840 costs

  13 February 1992

  Margate MC

  Causing sewage to enter the sea off Margate

  800 and 6,090 costs

  16 November 1992

  Gosport MC

  Causing pollution to enter the River Allver

  2,000 and 850 costs

  26 April 1993

  New Forest MC

  For polluting the Lymington River, Brockenhurst on 15 June 1992

  3,000 and 460 costs

  23 June 1994

  Fareham MC

  For causing pollution to enter Stoke Lake

  4,000 and 610 costs

  6 April 1995

  Fareham MC

  Causing pollution to enter the Tanyard Stream

  5,000 and 550 costs

  12 April 1995

  Tunbridge Wells MC

  For breach of consent at Tunbridge Wells STW resulting in pollution on 11 September 1994

  Fined 3,000 and 750 costs

  3 May 1995

  West Mailing MC

  Causing sewage to enter the River Bourne on 29 October 1994

  1,500 and 710 costs

  11 January 1996

  Fareham MC

  For causing pollution to enter a tributary of the River Wallington at Denmead

  5,000 and 690 costs

  20 February 1996

  Lewes MC

  For causing pollution to enter the Framfield Stream, Uckfield, Sussex on 12 September 1995

  3,500 and 630 costs

  14 March 1996

  Fareham MC

  For causing sewage to enter an unnamed stream at Fareham, Hants on 1 November 1995

  4,000 and 530 costs

  19 March 1996

  Lewes MC

  Causing sewage to enter the Eridge Stream, near Crowborough, Sussex on 20 August 1995

  3,500 and 590 costs

  19 June 1996

  Southampton MC

  Fined for causing water containing chalk residues to enter a boating lake at Southampton on 30 October 1995

  1,000 and 450 costs

  19 June 1996

  Southampton MC

  For causing sewage sludge to enter the lichen Estuary at Woolston, Hants on 22 November 1995

  7,000 and 390 costs

  31 July 1996

  Eastleigh MC

  For causing sewage to enter the Monks Brook Stream, Chandlers Ford

  2,000 and 580 costs

  1 August 1996

  Redhill MC

  For breaching consent conditions on quality and circumstances of a discharge at Lingfield STW on 12 November 1995

  Fined 3,500 and 830 costs

  26 March 1997

  Mid-Sussex MC

  For causing sewage to enter the Herrings Stream on 6 May 1996

  5,000 and 580 costs

  listed as follows. Copies are available from the GMO Deliberate Release Public Register in DETR's offices at Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1.
  Oil Seed Rape Consents Containing RT73:
  94/R5/2
  95/R5/6
  95/R22/3
  96/R22/6
  97/R13/7
  97/R19/16
  97/R22/9
  97/R24/1
  97/R24/2
  98/R20/2
  98/R22/13
  98/R24/3.

  Southern Water
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many successful prosecutions the Environment Agency has undertaken against Southern Water; and what fines have been imposed. [123752]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]Listed are details of the successful prosecutions carried out against Southern Water by the Environment Agency since July 1990 and the fines imposed by various Magistrates and Crown courts:
  201W

  Date

  Court

  Offence

  Fine (£)

  9 September 1997

  Hastings MC

  For causing sodium hypochlorite to enter the River Brede on 24 October 1996

  4,000 and 680 costs

  15 September 1997

  Sevenoaks MC

  For causing sewage to escape at Hadlow Stair Tonbridge on 20 August 1996

  Fined 2,500 and 580 costs

  17 October 1997

  Maidstone Crown court

  For causing sewage to enter the River Bourne at Plaxtol on 16 August 1996 with like offence on 25 May 1997 taken into consideration

  Fined 3,000 and 580 costs on appeal from West Mailing MC

  27 November 1998

  Eastleigh MC

  For causing sewage to escape from an inspection chamber into the Tanners Brook at Springford Gardens, Southampton on 29 January 1998

  Fined 2,000 and 630 costs

  5 February 1999

  Portsmouth Crown court

  For causing sewage to enter the River Wallington at Fareham on 29 December 1997

  Fined 4,000 and 630 costs on appeal from South Hampshire MC

  12 February 1999

  Canterbury MC

  For breach of lookup table in that there were 19 failures of consent when the tables allowed a maximum of three for the range of 17 to 28 samples taken during the year ending 7 November 1997

  Fined 10,000 and 660 costs

  17 March 1999

  Lewes MC

  For causing pollution to escape from Coopers Green Pumping Station, Uckfield into adjoining unnamed tributary of the River Uck on 23 December 1997

  Fined 5,000 and 360 costs

  8 July 1999

  Canterbury MC

  For causing screened sewage to enter the Swalecliffe Brook at Whitstable, Kent from Brook Road Pumping Station on 5 July 1998

  Fined 1,500 and 580 costs

  10 August 1999

  Fareham MC

  For causing sewage to discharge from inspection chamber into unnamed tributary of River Hamble near Sarisbury, Hants on 16 August 1998

  Fined 2,500 and 670 costs

  25 August 1999

  New Forest MC

  For breaching the terms of a consent to discharge by discharge by discharging from Barton on Sea works into the Beckton Bunny on 26 October 1998 at a time when there were not storm conditions

  Fined 5,000 and 706 costs

  15 November 1999

  Medway MC

  For causing sewage to enter Janes Creek, Strood due t blockage in sewer and consequent backing up into surface water system on 10 March 1999

  Fined 1,000 and 620 costs

  4 January 2000

  Maidstone MC

  For causing diluted sewage to enter an unnamed stream at Bearsted, Maidstone due to failure of pump systems at Ware Street Pumping Station on 6 June 1999

  Fined 4,500 and 600 costs

  10 February 2000

  Southampton MC

  For causing sewage to enter the Sholing Common Stream, Southampton due to blockage in sewer system on 5 November 1999

  Fined 2,500 and 640 costs

  28 February 2000

  Canterbury MC

  For breach of consent at May Street STW, Herne Bay on 20 and 21 December 1998

  Fined 6,000 (3,000 on each of two charges) and 660 costs

  20 March 2000

  Horsham MC

  For causing pollution to enter the Brockhurst Brook, Billingshurst, Sussex on 19 October 1998

  Fined 7,500 and 660 costs

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force will publish its final report. [124520]

  Mr. Hill
  The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, which was set up by my Department in 1997 to look at practical ways of reducing vehicle emissions, is publishing its final report, "The way forward—the final report of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force", today. The report covers five main areas:Transforming the market and achieving lower environmental impacts from vehicles in use through Government incentives, development of technology, and through better public awareness;
  The role of fleets in improving environmental performance of current and new vehicles;
  Cleaner fuels and technologies—both conventional and alternative fuels and technologies;
  The role for low emission zones; and
  Making sure everyone plays their part—the importance of enforcement in maintaining improvements.
  202W
  There has already been progress on the Task Force's interim recommendations, published in the 1999 report "Driving the Agenda". For instance, we announced in March that we would be spending £6 million this year on a Cleaner Vehicles Programme to take forward the Task Force's recommendations on retrofitting. Industry has acted too, with the motor industry adopting a label providing information about emissions on all new cars. We look forward to seeing rapid progress on the recommendations contained in this report.

  Copies of the final report, along with a background paper published by the Task Force on the environmental impacts of vehicle production and disposal and the reports of the Technology and Testing and Alternative Fuels sub-group, are available in the House Library.

  Air Services
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions if the decision-making process outlined in the Appraisal
  203W
  Framework for Airports in the South-East will allow for public consultation on the options examined during the sifting process. [124628]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]We shall ensure that the process of sifting will be open to public scrutiny during public consultation on the shortlisted options following completion of the study.

  A very large number of options will be considered during the sifting process, which is designed to reduce the options to a manageable number, so that those can be appraised in sufficient detail to support a meaningful public consultation.

  To attempt earlier consultations would greatly expand the work required and the length of the overall process; and would result in substantial and prolonged blight, uncertainty and anxiety.

  The approach adopted in this study is entirely consistent with my Department's Code of Practice on the Dissemination of Information during Major Infrastructure Developments.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the timetable is for decisions to be taken after completion of the South-East and East of England Regional Air Services Study in April 2001. [124627]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]It is expected that the South-East and East of England Regional Air Services Study will be completed by spring or summer 2001. This will be followed by a public consultation on the options arising from it.

  The results will feed into an Air Transport White Paper, which will also take account of the Government's decisions in response to the Inspector's report on the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study will examine the effects of an increase in employment in the South East on(a) local businesses and (b) the environment. [124629]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Yes—the study will examine and appraise the effects of airport development options on local employment markets and other urbanisation impacts.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the construction of a new southern-aligned runway at Gatwick Airport on people within the 57 LEQ noise contour, and of the number of people within that contour who would be affected. [124630]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]As I made clear in my answer to the hon. Member of 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 228W, it is premature to comment on what options are being considered in the South-East and East of England Regional Air Services study.

  I can confirm the draft appraisal framework for airports in the South-East and Eastern Regions of England makes provision, during full assessment, for the calculation of
  204W
  population within the 57 LEQ noise contour (16 hour day, average mode) as well as night noise. A simpler assessment will be used in the earlier stages of this study.

  Rents
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average increase in(a) council, (b) housing association and (c) private rents in each year since 1990–91. [123982]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Estimated average annual rent increases from 1991 to 2000 are as follows:

  Annual percentage change in average rents

  Housing association rents

  Local authority rents

  Private sector rents

  1991–92

  n/a

  15.3

  n/a

  1992–93

  15.1

  11.8

  n/a

  1993–94

  10.5

  9.3

  n/a

  1994–95

  8.1

  6.2

  4.8

  1995–96

  7.6

  7.3

  7.7

  1996–97

  7.0

  4.6

  8.6

  1997–98

  6.2

  2.5

  3.9

  1998–99

  4.0

  2.8

  5.1

  1999–2000

  n/a

  3.8

  n/a

  Sources:

  Private rents: Survey of English Housing (SEH)

  Housing Association (RSL) rents: Annual Regulatory and Statistical Return/Housing Corporation

  Local authority rents: DETR Subsidy Claim Forms (SCF) and annual Government Office survey

  Water Meters
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of water meters in higher rateable value properties on charges for customers in lower rateable value properties. [124650]

  Mr. Mullin
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. He has set out his position on the balance between measured and unmeasured water charges in "Tariff structure and charges: 2000–01 report", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current estimated cost of installing water meters in all domestic properties. [124647]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are no plans to meter all domestic properties, so no estimate has been made of the cost of doing so. Under the Water Industry Act 1999, companies in England and Wales must install a meter in any home when requested by the consumer, free of initial charge. The number of meters installed will depend on consumer choices. In his determination of water company price limits, the Director General of Water Services has allowed for £202 million capital and £53 million operating expenditure for the costs of installing optional meters in 2000–05.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of domestic properties are(a) fitted with water meters and (b) pay by volume. [124646]
  205W
  Mr. Mullin
  The Director General of Water Services publishes an annual report on "Tariff structure and charges", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This report gives details of the percentage of domestic properties who pay for water supplies according to volume. The figure for 2000–01 is estimated to be 19.6 per cent., based on forecast data provided by water companies. The equivalent figure for 1999–2000 was 17.1 per cent.

  In some instances a property may be fitted with a meter, but be charged on an unmetered basis. The Director General of Water Services collects only information relating to the number of meters that are installed and used as the basis for charging.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding the implications of water metering for low-income households where there are(a) children, (b) elderly and (c) people with disabilities and illnesses that require them to take frequent baths. [124649]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government published "Water Industry Act 1999: Consultation on Regulations" on 12 October 1999, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Fifty-three responses were received relating to the proposals for assisting low-income households who pay by meter.

  Following that consultation, the Government laid the Water Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Groups) Regulations 1999 on 22 December 1999, and made minor clarificatory amendments in the Water Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Groups) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid on 3 March 2000. Both came into force on 1 April 2000.

  The Regulations offer assistance to low-income households with water meters, who might face hardship as a result of high water use for basic household purposes. To qualify for assistance, a member of the household must be entitled to received income related benefits or tax credits; and either
  be responsible for three or more children under the age of 16;
  have (or have a child with) a qualifying medical condition which requires significant extra use.

  The response to consultation is contained in "Water Industry Act 1999: Delivering the Government's Objectives" which was published on 3 February 2000. This also included a copy of the main Regulations. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties in each of the council tax bands are fitted with a water meter. [124648]

  Mr. Mullin
  No information is available on the proportion of properties in each of the council tax bands fitted with a water meter.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what options he is considering to replace rateable values for calculating water charges. [124645]
  206W
  Mr. Mullin
  Under the Water Industry Act 1999, companies must produce charges schemes, which include details of the basis on which they wish to charge for water and sewerage services to homes. Schemes are subject to approval by the Director General of Water Services.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued guidance to the Director General on the approval of schemes for companies operating wholly or mainly in England. In considering whether or not to approve a new basis of unmeasured charging, key factors are the transitional effects of any change, any proposals for managing such effects and the impact of the new basis of charging on different groups, particularly vulnerable customers. Because of the potential social impacts on customers, the Director should not approve the widespread introduction of new unmeasured charging arrangements, without full consultation with the Secretary of State. The Government will continue to consider any proposals that come forward provided that they address the key factors.

  The Secretary of State's guidance under the 1999 Act and other background on water charging policy is set out in "Water Industry Act 1999—Delivering the Government's Objectives" published on 3 February, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Water Bills
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those water companies that charge for the payment of bills at post offices. [124657]

  Mr. Mullin
  Water companies do not charge their customers for payment of bills at post offices. Post Office Counters Ltd. levy a handling charge (currently £1 per transaction) for paying bills at post offices. This charge does not apply to GiroBank account holders.

  There is significant variation in the policy of water companies in England towards payment of water bills at Post Offices. Information available from water companies indicates that five companies currently subsidise all of any Post Office handling charge on behalf of their customers:

  Cambridge Water

  Folkestone and Dover Water

  North West Water

  South Staffordshire Water

  Southern Water.

  Customers of a further six companies can pay their bills free of charge if they use a payment card (obtainable free of charge from the water company):

  Essex and Suffolk Water

  Northumbrian Water

  Severn Trent Water

  South West Water

  Thames Water

  Yorkshire Water.

  Customers of Wessex Water and South East Water can pay bills free of charge at Post Offices if they use an instalments book; and customers of Bristol Water can pay bills free of charge if they pay in cash.
  207W
  Payment arrangements for the other companies vary. Such arrangements include part-subsidising the Post Office handling charge, or fully subsidising it for certain groups of customers (such as pensioners). All companies which do not offer an option to pay free of charge at Post Offices offer alternative locations (such as banks and shops) where free payments can be made.

  Under the Water Industry Act 1999, water companies have to submit their charges schemes to the Director General of Water Services for approval. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued guidance to the Director General of Water Services on the approval of schemes, which encourages companies to offer a range of payment options to customers, particularly those on low incomes, which they can take up at no extra cost. In approving schemes for 2000–01, the Director required all companies to ensure that charges schemes made provision for making cash payments free of charge at reasonably accessible locations.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give a list of the 10 largest grants awarded by each of the regional development agencies in England since their inception. [124237]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The 10 largest grants awarded by each of the regional development agencies since their inception are as follows:

  Regional Development Agency

  £000

  One North East

  Integrated Regeneration in County Durham and Darlington, SRB

  25,250

  Action for Communities, Northumberland, SRB

  15,610

  Extending East Gateshead, SRB

  12,000

  Focus on Ford and Pallion, Sunderland, SRB

  10,400

  Winning Back Neighbourhoods, Middlesborough, SRB

  8,700

  South Bank and Grangetown, Redcar and Cleveland, SRB

  7,462

  Extending the South Shields Challenge, SRB

  7,830

  Newcastle West into Work, SRB

  7,300

  North Hartlepool Partnership, SRB

  7,200

  From Exclusion to Inclusion, Stockton-on-Tees, SRB

  6,000

  Northwest Development Agency

  Blackburn Central, Living in the future, SRB

  25,000

  Manchester/East Manchester, Beacons for a better future, SRB

  25,000

  Rochdale/Opportunity and Inclusion, SRB

  25,000

  Salford/Integrating and Sustaining, SRB

  25,000

  St. Helens, Count me in, SRB

  24,916

  Halton, Focus for change, SRB

  23,059

  Knowsley/Northwood into the millennium, SRB

  12,308

  Rochdale Canal remainder

  10,620

  Terminal Complex Speke

  6,715

  Commonwealth Games, SRB

  6,200

  Yorkshire Forward

  Creating an Inclusive and Prosperous City, Sheffield, SRB

  25,040

  Better Neighbourhoods and Communities, Leeds, SRB

  24,864

  Build a Better Future, Doncaster, SRB

  16,500

  A Platform for Change, Kirklees, SRB

  15,124

  The Hemsworth Coalfield Partnership, Wakefield, SRB

  8,050

  Highfield Community Action, Bradford, SRB

  4,000

  Castlegate Markets, Sheffield

  3,861

  Kingswood Spec Factories

  2,964

  Falsgrave Community Investment Initiative, Scarborough, SRB

  2,956

  Reach Out, West Yorks

  2,693

  208W

  Regional Development Agency

  £000

  East Midlands Development Agency

  North Notts/North Derbys Coalfield Alliance, SRB

  24,000

  Leicester North West, Leicester City Council, SRB

  13,000

  Greater Nottingham Partnership, SRB

  12,000

  Lincoln City Partnership, SRB

  5,500

  Sherwood Energy Village, Ollerton

  2,510

  Strella and Brook House, Nottingham City

  2,388

  Leicester City Partnership, SRB

  2,000

  Grand Union Wharf, Loughborough

  1,510

  Coastal Regeneration Partnership, SRB

  1,500

  Park Wharf, Nottingham City

  963

  Advantage West Midlands

  Realising the Potential of Young People, Stoke-on-Trent, SRB

  16,540

  Building on Diversity, Walsall, SRB

  13,860

  Family Support, Birmingham, SRB

  12,000

  Valuing Young People, Coventry, SRB

  8,670

  Green Apprentices—Prosper, Black Country, SRB

  5,740

  Transforming Old Town, Leamington Spa, SRB

  4,460

  Wye—We can make it better, Hereford, SRB

  4,380

  Handsworth Area Regeneration Trust, Birmingham, SRB

  3,870

  Rural Community Regeneration, NE Staffordshire, SRB

  3,780

  Opening up Opportunities, Wolverhampton, SRB

  2,210

  East of England Development Agency

  Regenerating Peterborough, SRB

  5,853

  Stevenage, A Neighbourhood, SRB

  2,637

  Cobholm and Lichfield, Great Yarmouth, SRB

  2,438

  Arisdale Avenue, Thurrock

  2,248

  East Colchester, SRB

  2,237

  Bedford—Regenerating Communities, SRB

  2,026

  Southend on Sea, Crossbow 1, SRB

  1,873

  Suffolk Market Towns, SRB

  1,441

  High Street, Purfleet, Thurrock

  1,357

  Greenlands Quarry, Thurrock

  1,076

  South East Development Agency

  Regenerating the Heart of Portsmouth, SRB

  25,000

  Aerolaminates Ltd., St. Cross Business Park

  10,685

  Manston Park Call Centre

  5,947

  Developing Cohesive Communities, Southampton, SRB

  5,197

  Gateways to Community Success, SRB

  4,324

  Cheriton Park

  3,948

  Enterprising Leigh Park, Havant, SRB

  3,510

  East Oxford Action, SRB

  2,936

  Halisham East Area Renewal, SRB

  2,865

  South Kent Rural Development Area Partnership, SRB

  2,708

  South West Development Agency

  Hartcliffe and Withywood, SRB

  12,200

  Plymouth 2000, SRB

  11,800

  Tolvaddon Business Park, Cornwall

  2,990

  TGE Factory, Plymouth

  2,750

  Torbay New Deal, SRB

  2,700

  RNAS, Portland

  2,040

  West Cornwall Engage Programme, SRB

  2,000

  Gloucestershire Better Together, SRB

  1,800

  41 Valley Road, Plymouth

  1,490

  Penrose Farm, Indian Queens

  1,440

  Air Cargo
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what conditions he would liberalise the UK/USA aviation agreement for air cargo; and if he will make a statement. [124535]

  Mr. Mullin
  The liberalisation of cargo as well as passenger services will be discussed at air services talks with the United States commencing on 13 June. We will press the United States to allow greater access to the US domestic market for UK carriers.

  Forest of Dean
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of granting special status for the Forest of Dean; and what advice he has given to local planning authorities concerning the Forest of Dean and the local minerals plan; [124168]

  (2) if he has instructed the local planning authorities and the Mineral Planning Authority to treat the Forest of Dean as if it were an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. [124169]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Countryside Agency decided in November last year not to pursue the designation of the Forest of Dean as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at this time but instead to devise a package of regeneration measures to deliver integrated rural development in the Forest.

  The Government Office for the South West has submitted comments to Gloucestershire County Council on the initial and revised deposit drafts of the Minerals Local Plan, with a request that they be drawn to the attention of the Inspector at any public local inquiry and be made public. We are still considering a proposal from the Countryside Agency that we should advise the Council to treat the Forest of Dean as if it were an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for the purposes of the Minerals Local Plan.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has agreed to the funding of the post for the Countryside Agency Co-ordinator for the project in the Forest of Dean to develop special status. [124170]

  Mr. Mullin
  This is a matter for the Countryside Agency. The Agency's approved budget of £55.1 million for this year has been set against its main objectives as agreed with my Department. The Agency is responsible for the allocation of moneys within the budget to individual projects. I understand that a project officer has been appointed to take forward the delivery of integrated rural development in the Forest of Dean.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the publication of proposed changes to Part L of the Building Regulations, concerning the conservation of fuel and power, has been delayed; and if he will make a statement regarding the timetable for publication. [123509]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  When the review of Part L of the Building Regulations was announced in February 1998 it was indicated that this would be a very open process with full consultation on what might be included in the review in advance of the development of the proposals by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. This open process has been widely welcomed, but has raised a number of issues that have had to be explored before fully considered proposals for public consultations could be published. However, it is expected that the proposals will be published shortly with responses requested by the end of September.

  Beach Safety
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what systems of flag symbols are used on bathing beaches to signify the safety level of swimming conditions. [124248]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency understands that there are three levels of flag symbols used to signify the safety level of swimming conditions on bathing beaches.

  1. Red and Yellow flags signify that Lifeguards are on patrol and that Swimming or Boogie Boarding should only take place in the area between the flags.

  2. A Red Flag means that it is dangerous to bathe or swim and the water should not he entered.

  3. A quartered black and white flag indicates the area is zoned for surf craft and Malibu boards. This flag indicates that the area is not safe for swimmers and bathers.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is in relation to the provision of life protecting and saving services around the shoreline of the UK(a) on recognised recreational bathing beaches and (b) elsewhere. [124249]

  Mr. Mullin
  The then Secretary of State for Transport announced in Parliament on 9 March 1992,Official Report, columns 409–10W, that following acceptance of the recommendations of the coastal review that the role of Her Majesty's Coastguard needed to be clearly defined and promulgated and that by the authority given to him by the Coastguard Act 1925 it had been agreed that:
  Her Majesty's Coastguard is responsible for the initiation and co-ordination of civil maritime search and rescue within the United Kingdom search and rescue region. This includes the mobilisation, organisation and tasking of adequate resources to respond to persons either in distress at sea, or to persons at risk of injury or death on the cliffs or shoreline of the United Kingdom.

  Thus, in response to incidents on or to seaward of recognised recreational beaches, HM Coastguard can mobilise, task and co-ordinate search and rescue helicopters, RNLI inshore and all-weather lifeboats, Coastguard Rescue Teams and Beach Lifeguard Units where provided by local authorities. Elsewhere on the coast the same search and rescue units can be mobilised and tasked though Beach Lifeguard Units are not normally found other than on recreational beaches.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the possible correlation between the age of fishing vessels and accidents involving fire, explosion, foundering and loss of life for(a) over 12 metre and (b) under 12 metre vessels. [124485]

  Mr. Hill
  The Marine Accidents Investigation Branch (MAIB) has examined all reported accidents to UK fishing vessels, irrespective of length, involving fires and explosions, and floodings and founderings from 1992 to September 1999. No examination has been made of the correlation between the age of fishing vessels and the fatal accidents.

  The MAIB's figures show that the accident rate for floodings and founderings, for under 12 metre vessels up to 10 years old, and for over 12 metre vessels up to

  211W
  20 years old, is unremarkable but deteriorates thereafter. For all vessels more than 40 years old, the rate improves. For fires and explosions the correlation is similar to floodings and founderings for vessels over 12 metre vessels, but there is no meaningful correlation for under 12 metre vessels as the number reported to the MAIB is small.

  The MAIB concludes generally that the accident rate increases for all vessels in the 20 to 40 bracket largely because maintenance does not reach the level required to prevent these types of accidents. However, the rate improves for vessels more than 40 years old because the worse performing vessels have been removed from the fleet, and the remainder have been extensively refurbished.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of continuance of the trust port election system; and if he will make a statement. [124575]

  Mr. Hill
  Officials have examined these issues in detail and discussed them with the trust ports concerned.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on his Department's plans to reform trust ports, specifically with regard to plans to abolish the present trust port election system. [124574]

  Mr. Hill
  Our plans for reform of trust ports are set out in "Modernising Trust Ports—A guide to good governance" published in January. This guidance, drawn up with the assistance of trust ports and the Scottish Executive, includes advice on the appointment process in trust ports. In a few trust ports appointments are made by local election. We have not proposed to abolish these arrangements but we have offered further advice on improvements to ensure that elections are held in a more open and accountable manner. We have only received representations from two Scottish ports, which are being considered by the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he has taken of democratic accountability in his proposals for changing the election system in trust ports. [124576]

  Mr. Hill
  Our proposals seek to improve democratic accountability by ensuring that local elections for trust port boards reflect current electoral standards and are more representative of each port's community of stakeholders. Such improvements are also intended to deliver candidates with the skills required for governance of the ports.

  Petition (Boddam)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to investigate the loss of a petition from the residents of Boddam, Aberdeenshire, regarding the Boddam Foghorn, which was received by recorded delivery at his Department on 19 April; and if he will make a statement 212W
  concerning the circumstances surrounding the loss and his Department's policy on dealing with petitions from members of the public. [124251]

  Mr. Mullin
  After an extensive search within the Department, we have been unable to find the original correspondence. A copy of the petition was received on 1 June and will be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

  Petitions from members of the public are dealt with by officials in my Department unless they are sent via their MP. All correspondence is logged and passed to the appropriate division for a response.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the new strategy to revitalise health and safety; and if he will make a statement. [124918]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government and the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) will publish their "Revitalising Health and Safety" Strategy Statement tomorrow, and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. The strategy is about improving health and safety conditions in all of Britain's workplaces.

  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 was a landmark in making Britain's workplaces safer. The Act provides for good, effective regulation of health and safety and has transformed Britain's workplaces. We can see the results—the number of deaths at work today is a quarter of the 1971 level. Britain is now one of the safest countries in which to work. But in today's modern economy, it is unacceptable that hundreds of people still die in workplace accidents, and 25,000 more leave the workforce never to return as a result of being injured, or made ill, by their work.

  This Government are determined to build a fair and decent society for everyone, not just the few. A better deal for working people is central to that vision—safe and healthy working conditions are at the core of that vision. Tomorrow, the Government and the HSC will embark on a new 10 year programme of improvement. For the first time ever, the Government and the HSC will set national targets to cut work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses. We will implement 44 separate measures to that end. These will include motivating employers to raise their game, giving further support to the important work done by safety representatives, and giving more help to small firms in their management of health and safety. Above all, we will inject new impetus into the health and safety system to prevent accidents and ill health causing misery to thousands of people.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Finance Management and Policy Review of the Housing Corporation. [124921]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 14 December 1999 I announced that, as part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly finance, management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department would be conducting a thorough review of The Housing Corporation in 2000.
  213W
  The "Prior Options" stage of the review has been completed and I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  The purpose of the Prior Options stage was to assess the extent to which The Housing Corporation's functions were necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether there was scope for contracting out or transferring all or part of its functions to another body.

  The Government's Housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all" affirms the Government's commitment to improving the quality of social housing and its management, supporting the transfer of up to 200,000 homes from the local authority sector to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and to the continuing allocation of funding to RSLs for new social housing. There is therefore a continuing need for a mechanism to regulate the RSL sector to protect public investment, to promote improved performance in the sector and to allocate funding for new social housing. Against this background, the Government accept the Prior Options Review conclusions, that the Housing Corporation should continue to be responsible for registration and regulation of RSLs in England; should continue to allocate funds for new social housing; and that its status as a non-departmental public body remains appropriate to the Corporation's functions.

  The Housing Corporation is already taking forward a number of recommendations in the report. In particular it is: strengthening its regulatory skills, especially in business and finance; working to establish a full Best Value regime to promote improved performance in the RSL sector; will set up an inspection process to support this regime; and will continue developing its funding arrangements and processes for making investment decisions.

  The report identifies a number of issues to be examined in the second stage of the FMPR, including a review of the Corporation's organisational framework; exploring the options for an appeals mechanism for dealing with disputed regulatory judgments; the case for strengthening the Corporation's powers; agreeing a concordat between the Department and the Corporation for joint working on policy development; and reviewing targets set for the Corporation.

  I am grateful for contributions received in the course of the Review from The Housing Corporation, National Housing Federation, local authority associations, Chartered Institute of Housing, Audit Commission, Council of Mortgage Lenders, individual RSLs and numerous other bodies and individuals. The report contains a list of those who contributed. Copies of written responses are available through the Library.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the County Councils and Unitary Councils ranked in order of the volume of waste disposed of in each of their areas. [123384]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]The table shows County Councils and Unitary Authorities ranked in order of the amount of waste collected for recycling, composting and disposal. This list is based on the data 214W
  provided by the authorities in response to the Department's Municipal Waste Management Survey for 1997–98 and excludes authorities which did not provide a complete response to the questionnaire.

  LA Name

  Total (thousand tones)

  Isles of Scilly Council

  3

  Rutland County Council

  20

  Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

  29

  Ceredigion County Council

  37

  Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

  39

  Isle of Anglesey County Council

  41

  Denbighshire County Council

  45

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  46

  Monmouthshire County Council

  47

  Torfaen County Borough Council

  51

  Darlington Borough Council

  52

  Powys County Council

  53

  Vale of Glamorgan Council

  54

  Cyngor Gwynedd

  57

  Swindon Borough Council

  59

  Isle of Wight Council

  60

  Bridgend County Borough Council

  61

  Pembrokeshire County Council

  64

  Corporation of the City of London

  64

  Middlesbrough Borough Council

  66

  Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

  67

  Poole Borough Council

  71

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  72

  Wrexham County Borough Council

  75

  Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

  76

  Kingston-upon-Thames London Borough

  77

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  79

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  80

  Carmarthenshire County Council

  81

  London Borough of Greenwich

  86

  North Tyneside Council

  87

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  88

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  89

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  91

  Portsmouth City Council

  91

  Luton Borough Council

  91

  Milton Keynes Council

  95

  North Somerset Council

  97

  Caerphilly County Borough Council

  97

  Merton London Borough

  99

  North Lincolnshire Council

  101

  Southampton City Council

  101

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  105

  London Borough of Lewisham

  108

  Swansea City Council

  110

  Derby City Council

  111

  London Borough of Southwark

  112

  London Borough of Bexley

  119

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  120

  Leicester City Council

  123

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  124

  Brighton and Hove Council

  128

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  128

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  129

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  134

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  134

  South Gloucestershire Council

  137

  Kingston-upon-Hull City Council

  141

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  142

  Sunderland City Council

  142

  Cardiff County Council

  142

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  155

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  161

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  163

  Northumberland County Council

  168

  London Borough of Bromley

  168

  Dorset County Council

  178

  London Borough of Croydon

  178

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  180

  Bristol City Council

  185

  Bedfordshire County Council

  187

  215W

  LA Name

  Total (thousand tones)

  Wiltshire County Council

  188

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council

  201

  Shropshire County Council

  204

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  226

  East Sussex County Council

  229

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  232

  Somerset County Council

  232

  Bradford City Metropolitan District Council

  233

  Cornwall County Council

  239

  Gloucestershire County Council

  243

  Cumbria County Council

  244

  Warwickshire County Council

  248

  Sheffield City Council

  257

  Durham County Council

  263

  Lincolnshire County Council

  274

  Oxfordshire County Council

  276

  North Yorkshire County Council

  280

  Northamptonshire County Council

  284

  Leicestershire County Council

  314

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  322

  Suffolk County Council

  326

  Leeds City Council

  334

  Worcestershire County Council

  342

  Derbyshire County Council

  352

  Norfolk County Council

  372

  West Sussex County Council

  372

  Staffordshire County Council

  427

  Hertfordshire County Council

  456

  Western Riverside Waste Authority

  458

  East London Waste Authority

  464

  Surrey County Council

  482

  Devon County Council

  495

  Birmingham City Council

  528

  Cheshire County Council

  528

  Nottinghamshire County Council

  555

  Hampshire County Council

  561

  Lancashire County Council

  654

  Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority

  699

  Kent County Council

  701

  West London Waste Authority

  704

  North London Waste Authority

  796

  Essex County Council

  811

  Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority

  1,286

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the future plans of the Compensation Agency; and if he will make a statement. [124917]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Compensation Agency will publish today its Corporate Plan and Business Plan. I have set the Agency the following nine Key Performance Targets for the coming year:

  1. To process criminal injuries claims for an average unit cost of £295.

  2. To process criminal damage and emergency provisions claims for an average unit cost of £147.

  3. To maintain the average time taken to reach decisions on criminal injuries claims at 45 weeks for claims received from 1 April 1999.

  4. To maintain the average time taken to reach decisions on criminal damage claims at 19 weeks for claims received from 1 April 2000.

  5. To reduce the average time taken to reach decisions on emergency provisions claims to 35 days for claims received from 1 April 2000.
  216W
  6. To reduce by 85 per cent. the number of criminal injuries claims in hand at 31 March 1999 on which no decision had been reached.

  7. To reduce by 85 per cent. the number of criminal damage claims in hand at 31 March 2000 on which no decision had been reached.

  8. To reduce by 95 per cent. the number of emergency provisions claims in hand at 31 March 2000 on which no decision had been reached.

  9. To manage the Agency's workload in 2000–01 within a running costs budget (to cover salaries and administrative expenditure) to cover salaries and administrative expenditure) to financial limits agreed with the Department (including in-year adjustments).

  Benefit Payments (Costs)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual cost of his Department's and its agencies administration of benefit payments(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of spending on benefit payments. [124254]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The estimated cost of administering the social security benefit system in Northern Ireland in 1998–99, the latest year for which information is available, was £125.6 million. This equates to 4 per cent. of benefit expenditure which amounted in total in that year to £3,168.8 million.

  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.

  Departmental Staff (Technology)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what staff and technology are shared between his Department and its agencies and the Department of Social Security and its agencies; what work is undertaken(a) on behalf of the DSS and its agencies by his Department and its agencies and (b) by the DSS and its agencies on behalf of his Department or agencies in the last year; and what payments have been made in each case. [124255]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland does not share staff with the Department of Social Security (DSS) in Great Britain. The Department's Child Support Agency provides child support services for those DSS clients living in Eastern England. The Department receives £25.5 million from DSS in respect of this business. The Social Security Agency also provides benefit processing and administration services to DSS for clients living in the Lewisham, Neasden and Brixton areas of London, for which it receives an annual payment of £10.4 million from DSS. The Department also provides a storage and retrieval service to DSS for social security order book foils for which it receives an annual payment of £4.9 million.

  The Department for Social Development uses the DSS computer systems to administer social security benefits and to deliver Child Support services. The Department pays DSS £7.7 million for the use of these systems and for the installation and maintenance
  of the equipment on which they run.
  217W
  The DSS also provides the Department with a number of other ancillary services, such as publishing and distribution, fraud inspection, work measurement and Child Support decision making. DSS receive £510,000 for these services.

  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.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Leisure Centres and Libraries (Access)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the population lives(a) within one mile of and (b) over three miles from (i) a leisure centre and (ii) a library in (A) rural and (B) urban areas. [124497]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]This information is not available. For leisure centres, analysis carried out by Sport England in 1998 using the Facilities Planning Model developed in association with the Scottish Sports Council and Edinburgh University estimated that 96.6 per cent. of people living in England live within 15 minutes drive of a sports hall with at least three courts, and 85.1 per cent. of people in England live within 15 minutes drive of an indoor swimming pool. I have placed a copy of the Facilities Planning Guide published by Sport England in the Library.

  No information on travelling distances or travel times is available in respect of libraries.

  Millennium Experience (Ticket Sales)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department will conduct an internal review under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information into the non-provision of the information requested by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on regional ticket sales to the Millennium Experience. [124365]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting wrote to my hon. Friend on 6 December 1999. Following an investigation by the New Millennium Experience Company into the pattern of ticket sales, it was discovered that most were purchased from central sales points, including the Dome call centre, and it is therefore impossible to provide any meaningful statistical breakdown of visitors by region. I am satisfied that the reason for the non-provision of information in this respect is that the information does not exist, rather than that it is being deliberately withheld.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the funds which are available to local authorities on application, indicating those for which the Torbay Unitary Authority has successfully applied in each of the last two years. [124193]
  218W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following funds are available to Local Authorities on application:DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund—£3 million a year to enhance facilities and services of English Public Libraries, of which DCMS makes available £2 million and the Wolfson Foundation £1 million.
  English Heritage—Grants are available to local authorities for the conservation of Grade I and II listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments. Funding is also available to local authorities under EH's Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme (HERS), under which a three year programme of grant aid is targeted at heritage-based economic regeneration.
  Arts Council of England—Local authorities can have access to project funds from Regional Arts Boards.
  National Lottery
  Arts Council of England—A number of capital and revenue schemes for which organisations can apply with a view to developing and sustaining access to, and participation in, the arts.
  Lottery Sports Fund—Lottery Sports Fund provides grants for sports facilities and sports provision.
  Heritage Lottery Fund—Grants for works to buildings, structures and areas that are of historic or architectural importance and for action to widen and enhance popular access to the heritage. HLF also supports improvements to the housing and presentation of collections in museums and galleries.
  New Opportunities Fund
  The Information Communication and Technology for Librarians—a £50 million programme that aims to digitise a wide range of material to support lifelong learning needs and education in its broadest sense.
  Out of School Hours Learning—a £205 million grant programme that aims to create regular out-of-school hours learning activities, and new summer school places.
  Community Access to Lifelong Learning Programme—a £200 million grant programme that aims to improve access to lifelong learning for adults through the use of ICT with a particular focus on socially excluded adults and those in disadvantaged communities.
  Successful Awards to Torbay Council
  English Heritage
  A grant of £150,000 has been offered by EH under the HERS towards conservation work in the Paignton Conservation Area between April 2000 and March 2003.
  New Opportunities Fund
  An award of £408,500 through the Out-of-School Hours Learning Programme. The Fund has also allocated funding to schools in Torbay amounting to £421,234 under a programme for ICT training for teachers and school librarians.
  Arts Council of England
  Over the last two years there has been one Grant in Aid award from the Arts Council to Torbay Borough Council:
  a grant of £2,500 as part of the Capital Art Strategy.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the letter of direction for the payment of £29 million to the Dome. [123980]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the right hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Tourism Summit
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will report on the outcome of the first Tourism summit held in London on 1 March. [124922]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Copies of a full report on the summit, and of other documents tabled at the meeting, have been deposited in the Libraries of the House. A further summit will be held next year to review progress and decide further action.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to publish the bilateral concordat between his Department and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales. [124923]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am pleased to announce that the Concordat between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales has now been agreed. Copies of the Concordat have been placed in the Libraries of the House, and the text will also be available on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website http://www.culture.gov.uk.

TREASURY

  EU Stability Pact
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the application of the EU Stability Pact to the UK. [123830]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the EC Treaty, the UK once a year submits a Convergence programme as part of the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what obligations are imposed on him in respect of public spending by the EU stability pact; and what contribution these have made to ensuring that divergences in the economic cycle between the UK and Europe are reduced. [124349]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1467/97, the UK should endeavour to avoid excessive deficits.

  Sterling Deposits
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in 1998 and 1999 in(a) foreigners' holdings of sterling deposits and (b) UK residents' deposits overseas, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. [124346]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information can be found in tables 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B of the "BIS Quarterly Review", and table B8 of "Bank of England Monetary and Financial Statistics".

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commitments have been made by the UK to the EU convergence programme; how far these have been 220W
  breached; and what contributions they have made to ensuring more stability in the Sterling-Euro exchange rate. [124350]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In line with the Stability and Growth Pact, the Government submit a Convergence Programme to the European Commission and the Council, which provides an annual update of our economic performance. The economic forecasts and fiscal projections for the 1999 Convergence Programme are those given in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Inflation Target
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits and consequences of including asset prices in the Bank of England's inflation target; and if he will make a statement. [124348]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is required to meet the Government's clear inflation target of 2.5 per cent. RPIX inflation. Dual target systems have in the past led to macroeconomic instability for example, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The MPC takes into account all relevant information, including asset prices, in making its judgment on interest rates to achieve the Government's inflation target.

  National Insurance
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional annual revenue from raising the ceiling on employees' national insurance contributions to(a) the level at which taxpayers became liable for higher rate income tax and (b) £1,000 a week. [124250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year yields from increasing the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL) and Upper Profits Limit (UPL) in 2001–02 are given in the table.

  £ million

  2001–02

  Exchequer yield

  Increase the UEL/UPL to: higher rate threshold

  840

  to £1,000 per week

  2,560

  The estimates are consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Census
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the proposed forms of questionnaire that will be required to be completed in next year's census of population in England and Wales. [124924]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have today laid before the House the Census Regulations 2000 (Statutory Instrument 2000–1473) which include facsimile copies of the forms to be completed by householders, individuals and persons in charge of communal establishments in respect of the next census of population in England and Wales, to be taken on 29 April 2001. The Regulations also provide for
  221W
  the appointment of persons to carry out the field operations and the detailed arrangements for the conduct of the census. Pending the progress of the Census (Amendment) Bill these forms do not currently contain a question on religion.

  Corresponding Regulations covering the Census in Scotland were laid before the Scottish Parliament on 5 April. Similar Regulations covering the Census in Northern Ireland were made on 25 May.

  National Statistics
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Framework Document relating to National Statistics. [124930]

  Disability Living Allowance appeals

  Appeal decisions

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  All decisions

  28,225

  35,551

  38,194

  49,000

  47,775

  Award reduced

  33

  56

  78

  87

  106

  As percentage

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Award increased

  4,593

  5,741

  5,662

  6,523

  5,714

  As percentage

  16.3

  16.1

  14.8

  13.3

  12.0

  Award varied

  155

  210

  279

  356

  306

  As percentage

  0.5

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.6

  Allowed

  11,801

  13,346

  12,710

  16,261

  16,725

  As percentage

  41.8

  37.5

  33.3

  33.2

  35.0

  Notes:

  The following were also included to provide a complete picture of outcomes on DLA appeals.

  1. Award varied is where the length of award changes or the monetary value remains the same but components change.

  2. Allowed is where Lay Review/Appeal is determined in favour of the claimant.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) net cost and (b) number of beneficiaries of abolishing Attendance Allowance and

  Estimated cost and number of gainers from abolition of upper age limit for Disability Living Allowance

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Cost (£ billion)

  2.8

  3.0

  3.1

  3.2

  3.4

  Gainers (million)

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  1.45

  1.5

  Notes:

  1. Costs are in cash prices and rounded to nearest hundred million and number of gainers rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  2. Estimates derived from model of entitlement based on 1996–97 Disability Survey and fort cast case loads.

  3. Estimates are subject to a significant margin of error reflecting underlying uncertainties of modelling entitlement from available survey data.

  Estimated costs include effects on income related benefits.

  Widows Pension
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claim the widow's pension in(a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency. [124715]

  Mr. Rooker
  At 31 March 1999 there were 29,000 recipients of Widows' Benefit living in Scotland. Information is not available below national level.

  Notes:

  1. The figure is the total recipients of Widow's Pension and Widowed Mother's Allowance.
  222W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  National Statistics will be launched tomorrow. The Framework Document and the list of statistics for initial inclusion in National Statistics will be laid before both Houses tomorrow morning. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of independent appeals on Disability Living Allowance cases have resulted in a decision being amended (i) upwards and (ii) downwards in each of the last five years. [124708]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  removing the upper age limit for Disability Living Allowance in each of the next five years. [124416]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table:

  2. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from Pension Strategy Computer System.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the extra total cost of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners over and above the cost of income support for which pensioners were previously eligible. [124344]

  Mr. Bayley
  During the lifetime of this Parliament the extra total cost of the minimum income guarantee and
  223W
  associated benefits for pensioners over and above the cost of Income Support for which pensioners were previously eligible is estimated to be £2.2 billion in real terms.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what methods he uses to measure the annual increase in earnings for the purpose of uprating the minimum income guarantee. [124393]

  Mr. Bayley
  In line with the Government's commitment to provide security in retirement for the poorest pensioners, the minimum income guarantee has been increased by 4.6 per cent., in line with the increase in average earnings. This measure of earnings growth reflects the 12-month headline rate and is based on a three-month average up to July 1999, published in The Stationery Office's "Monthly Digest of Statistics".

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a pensioner with income above the minimum income guarantee level who claims all the benefits to which they are entitled can be worse off than if they were receiving the minimum income guarantee. [124391]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are not aware of a situation where an individual with weekly income above the minimum income guarantee (MIG) level would be worse off, in terms of weekly cash income, after claiming all the benefits to which they are entitled.

  Receipt of the MIG does provide a pensioner with access to certain additional services, such as free school meals and social fund budgeting loans, that are not available to those not entitled.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of fraud by(a) number of claimants and (b) value (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of total benefit payments for each benefit in (1) the UK and (2) Scotland [124252]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is available in the last Government Statistical Service report on the Area Benefit Reviews, "Results of the Area Benefit Review April 1998–99 and measurements for the public service agreement", which was published on 28 January. A copy is available in the Library.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries of extending entitlement to invalid care allowance to people who would otherwise be entitled but (i) earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit, but whose earnings exceed the earnings limit for ICA, (ii) are aged over 65 years and (iii) are aged over 65 or earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit in each of the next five years. [124417]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.224W

  Estimated cost of the abolition of the upper age limit for claiming Invalid Care Allowance (ICA)

  Cost (£ million)

  Gainers (Thousand)

  2001–02

  25

  40

  2002–03

  25

  40

  2003–04

  25

  40

  2004–05

  25

  40

  2005–06

  30

  40

  Notes:

  1. Costs are given in cash prices. Costs rounded to the nearest 5 million, gainers to the nearest 10,000.

  2. Estimates are based on Family Resources Survey 1997–98 and 1998–99, and caseload forecasts.

  3. As estimates are based on survey data, the above will be subject to sampling error. The limitations of modelling entitlement from available survey data on the number of hours that individuals spend providing care mean that the above are subject to a significant margin of error.

  4. It is assumed that all existing ICA entitlement rules remain in place after any abolition of the upper age limit for new claims. Costs include the effects on Income Support carer premium.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the(a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries continuing to pay for invalid care allowance (i) after the person cared for dies, (ii) after the person cared for enters permanent residential care and (iii) after care ends, for (1) four weeks and (2) eight weeks in each of the next five years. [124415]

  Mr. Bayley
  No information is available on the numbers/costs of an Invalid Care Allowance run-on when the disabled person enters residential care. Information on the other questions is shown in the tables.

  The estimated costs and number of gainers from a four week run-on after death of the disabled person

  Year

  Costs (£ million)

  Gainers

  2001–02

  1

  10,000

  2002–03

  1

  10,000

  2003–04

  1

  15,000

  2004–05

  1

  15,000

  2005–06

  1

  15,000

  The estimated costs and number of gainers from an eight week run-on after death of the disabled person

  Year

  Costs (£ million)

  Gainers

  2001–02

  2

  10,000

  2002–03

  2

  10,000

  2003–04

  2

  15,000

  2004–05

  2

  15,000

  2005–06

  2

  15,000

  The estimated costs and gainers of a four week run-on when care ceases for any reason

  Year

  Costs (£ million)

  Gainers

  2001–02

  11

  50,000

  2002–03

  12

  50,000

  2003–04

  13

  50,000

  2004–05

  14

  55,000

  2005–06

  15

  60,000

  225W

  The estimated Costs and gainers from an eight week run-on when care ceases for any reason

  Year

  Costs (£ million)

  Gainers

  2001–02

  22

  50,000

  2002–03

  24

  50,000

  2003–04

  25

  50,000

  2004–05

  27

  55,000

  2005–06

  29

  60,000

  Note:

  Costs are rounded to the nearest £ million and gainers to the nearest 5,000.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 439W, what the national insurance fund balance would be, and how far above the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary, at the end of each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04, if the basic

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Winter fuel payment (a)

  200

  200

  760

  1,380

  1,210

  Minimum income guarantee (b)

  —

  —

  410

  700

  1,090

  Total (c=a+b)

  200

  200

  1,170

  2,080

  2,300

  Retirement pension earning-uprated since April 1998 (d)

  —

  160

  590

  1,610

  2,080

  Extra spending (c-d)

  200

  40

  580

  480

  220

  Cumulative extra spending

  200

  240

  820

  1,300

  1,520

  Notes:

  1. Rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Costs are in 1999–2000 terms.

  3. Some figures do not appear to sum. This is due to rounding.

  4. Average earnings assumptions for both (b) and (d) are based on an average of seasonally adjusted figures for the three months to July of the previous year, as originally published.

  Benefits Administration
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of his Department's administration including its agencies(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of total spending on benefit payments. [124253]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cost of administration, in total and as a percentage of benefit expenditure for the period 1994–95 to 1999–2000, is shown in figure 41 of the Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 4614).

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated cost is in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of extending entitlement to winter fuel payments to men under 65 years; and how much of the cost in each year represents arrears for previous years. [124256]

  Angela Eagle
  In light of the Taylor ruling by the European Court of Justice in December 1999, we decided to extend eligibility to Winter Fuel Payments to include men aged 60–64. To do so it was also necessary to remove the qualifying benefit as an eligibility condition. This brought some newly eligible women, as well as men, into the scheme.

  The estimated additional programme costs of extending the scheme in 2000–01 and 2001–02 are in the table and take into account the increase in the Winter Fuel Payment
  226W
  pension and linked benefit rates remained at their present level in 2000–01 and were uprated in line with prices thereafter. [124257]

  Mr. Rooker
  As I said on 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 484W, precise long-term forecasts of any excess on the Fund reserves would be misleading given the sensitivity of the difference between forecasts of receipts and expenditure to the variables involved.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on 11 April 2000,Official Report, column 144W, if the cost of uprating on the basis of earnings the basic pension shown there, including the cost of uprating the linked benefits on the same basis; and what would be the cost for each year from 1998–99 to 2001–02, if the uprating, including the linked benefits, was based on the average earnings index for the three months to July of the previous year. [124392]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  to £150 for eligible households from winter 2000–01. The cost of payments for past winters go back to the beginning of the scheme in the winter of 1997–98.

  £ million

  Additional costs

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Annual costs

  130

  130

  Cost for payments in past winters

  150

  0

  Notes:

  1. These costs are based on assumptions about take-up. The precise cost will vary depending on the level of take-up among the client group concerned.

  2. Costs are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

HEALTH

  NHS Drugs Budget
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reform of the NHS drugs budget. [122876]

  Ms Stuart
  By introducing unified budgets for health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts we have given them the flexibility to manage the growing National Health Service budget, including spending on medicines in the way that they consider best for their patients.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS treatment of the elderly. [122877]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are determined that older people should have high standards of care from the National Health Service based on clinical need and no other factor. Our National Service Framework for Older People, to be published in the autumn, will set national standards in health care for older people. Our plans to develop Intermediate Care Services will play an important part in promoting the independence of older people.

  Worcester Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the proposal to transfer services from Kidderminster hospital to Worcester and Redditch prior to the completion of the new Worcester royal infirmary; and if he will make a statement. [122878]

  Yvette Cooper
  When Worcestershire Health Authority's strategy "Investing in Excellence" was approved, the Secretary of State was satisfied that appropriate evidence and advice had been taken into account. Proposals for the early relocation of services from Kidderminster General Hospital are operational details and as such are the responsibility of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Drug Rehabilitation Programmes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve the delivery of drug rehabilitation programmes. [122879]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government are committed to a robust strategy to tackle drug misuse and we are backing it with extra resources: more than £200 million over three years. It is one of the Department's 13 key priorities. Through better performance management and guidance on optimum models of care we will ensure that more people benefit from treatment which is effective, including residential rehabilitation.

  Skin Cancer
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the increasing incidence of skin cancer among young people. [122880]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are signs of increasing incidence of skin cancer among young people but it seems that any increase may be levelling off. This year the Government will be using posters, factsheets, websites and weather forecasts in a determined effort to provide accessible information enabling young people to make informed choices.

  Asthma
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are suffering from asthma; what action his Department is taking to combat asthma; and if he will make a statement. [122881]

  Yvette Cooper
  The estimated prevalence is 4–6 per cent. in children and 4 per cent. in adults; approximately 2–3 million people in the United Kingdom.
  228W
  We are supporting a range of initiatives to combat the effects of asthma. Collaboration with the National Asthma Campaign, active involvement of the Chronic Disease Management Programme and over £3.5 million of Government-funded research reflect this.

  Diet and Exercise
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the relationship between poverty and diet and exercise. [122882]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government fully recognise the links between social deprivation, poor diet and physical inactivity. The Acheson report commissioned by the Government highlighted the phenomenon of food poverty as a very important consideration within public health. The link is confirmed by the recently published National Diet and Nutritional Survey for young people. This shows that, for example, among manual social groups only 22 per cent. of boys consume fruit compared with 39 per cent. in non-manual classes. A similar picture also emerges in the case of girls in manual classes, with only 29 per cent. consuming fruit compared to 43 per cent. among their non-manual counterparts.

  The social class patterns for physical activity are less clear. Lower levels of leisure time exercise seem balanced by more active jobs for those on the lowest incomes. Based on these and other indicators like the National Diet and Nutrition Survey for young people, we are examining these issues as part of the development of the National Plan.

  Camden and Islington Health Action Zone
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress of the Camden and Islington health action zone. [122883]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect Camden and Islington health action zone to achieve significant results in reducing health inequalities and modernising services over its seven year life. Both the independent evaluation and the performance monitoring process report good early progress in Camden and Islington and the other HAZs. We are due to receive an end of year performance report on the HAZ initiative later in the summer and a national report on progress will be published in the autumn.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on reducing waiting times for cancer treatment. [122884]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) today,Official Report, column 141.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the timing of the announcement of special allocations to health authorities for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care. [122885]
  229W
  Yvette Cooper
  We announced special allocations for HIV/AIDS treatment and care for 2000–01, totalling £184.3 million on 18 May. This is an increase of £21 million over the baseline or 13 per cent.

  £54.8 million was allocated last December for HIV Prevention.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of advocacy to people subject to compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Acts. [122886]

  Mr. Hutton
  All mentally ill people subject to compulsory care should have access to good advocacy. As we announced in our Green Paper on the reform of the Mental Health Act, we are commissioning work to determine and develop models of good practice. I hope to have the results of the study by early next year.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average number of hours per week used by GP members of primary care groups on PCG-related work. [R] [122887]

  Mr. Denham
  We estimate that on average a typical board member of a Primary Care Group would need to spend between two and 2½ days per month on board business. However, the actual time commitment which each Primary Care Group member makes will depend on his or her role, responsibilities and personal commitment.

  Teenage Pregnancies (South Yorkshire)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies in the South Yorkshire area. [122889]

  Yvette Cooper
  All four South Yorkshire districts have comprehensive strategies in place to reduce teenage pregnancy and support teenage parents. They have received funds totalling £345,000 for this financial year, to boost local projects. Each health authority has appointed a co-ordinator to drive forward the strategy in their area. This follows the launch last year by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of the Government's strategy to halve the rates of conceptions among under-18s by 2010.

  CJD
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the assistance offered by the Government to CJD victims and their families. [122890]

  Yvette Cooper
  We will shortly be publishing some new guidance for health care professionals on caring for CJD patients. Among other things, it will stress the important role a named 'key worker' plays in ensuring the response properly meets the patient's and family's needs.

  A national care co-ordinator has recently joined the Government-funded National CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh to provide specialist expertise in CJD for professionals and carers.
  230W
  The Department of Health also funds the CJD Support Network, a voluntary organisation providing help and support to patients and families affected by all types of CJD, to employ a case co-ordinator to help local service providers respond appropriately to patients' and families' care needs. In addition, the Human BSE Foundation are funded by the Department to provide help and support specifically to patients and families affected by variant CJD.

  Finally, negotiations are underway to ensure the funding of the London Prion Unit at St. Mary's Hospital, which specialises in treating vCJD patients, and also offers information, advice and support for patients, families and professionals on all types of CJD.

  Treatment Inconsistencies
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made on eliminating inconsistent provision of treatments between health authorities. [122892]

  Mr. Denham
  We are setting standards through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the National Service Frameworks. We are ensuring local delivery through clinical governance and monitoring delivery through the performance assessment framework and the Commission for Health Improvement. We are working with relevant parties, utilising the record increases in National Health Service funding announced in the Budget, to improve NHS performance.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to fund the elimination of wide variations and discrepancies between local areas in health service provision. [122896]

  Mr. Denham
  We allocate funding to health authorities on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority's target fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Tackling unacceptable variations in performance and treatment is one of the key challenges we have set the National Health Service. We are working with key professionals and frontline staff to see how we can improve NHS performance and productivity so that we make the best use of the record increases in NHS funding announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to take to ensure uniformity in the availability of complex and expensive medical treatments. [122870]

  Mr. Denham
  The availability of complex and expensive medical treatments is achieved through the work of the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group (for services with a national caseload) and the new regional commissioning arrangements introduced in April 1999.
  231W
  In addition, national standards are being set by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the National Service Framework programme, local delivery is ensured through Clinical Governance, and services are monitored through the Performance Assessment Framework, the Commission for Health Improvement and national patient surveys.

  Gene Technology
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of gene technology on the delivery of health services. [122893]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are aware of the rapid advances being made in gene technology. However, much research is still needed to determine the clinical utility of any developments. A strategy project is considering the implications for health services and the new Human Genetics Commission will keep this under review.

  Podiatry Services
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to primary care groups on foot care and podiatry services for elderly and disabled people and their carers. [122894]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on the provision of podiatry services is contained in "Feet First", the report of a joint Department of Health and NHS Chiropody Task Force published in 1994. A steering group has conducted a review of "Feet First" and we shall consider carefully its recommendations.

  Audiology Services
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his plans to improve audiology services in the NHS. [122897]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Henley) today,Official Report, columns 143–44.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget has been set for the public consultation on the future of the NHS. [122898]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 240W.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that children's hospices receive the same level of national health service funding as other hospices. [122864]

  Ms Stuart
  Unlike hospices for adults, children's hospices provide mainly respite care for children with complex needs and their families. To be worthwhile, such care needs to be convenient and flexible to the needs of the family, so a number of different models, including respite at home or in hospices or hospitals, are available in different localities. Where there is a hospice, I know these services are highly valued by users and by the local health economy
  232W
  Health authorities must use their recurrent funding to meet the assessed health needs of their resident population, including the need for palliative or respite care for children or adults. Precise levels of funding are a matter for local discussion and agreement, based on local health needs assessment as set out in Health Improvement Programmes.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Southend)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing hospital waiting lists in Southend-on-Sea. [122891]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the fourth quarter of 1996–97, Southend Hospital NHS Trust has reduced the total number of patients on their in-patient waiting lists by 959. Out-patient long waiters are currently falling, and Southend Hospital NHS Trust has achieved its locally agreed target for reduction in the number of long waiting out-patient for 1999–00.

  NHS Funding (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that NHS services in Colchester receive at least the national average per capita funding. [122895]

  Mr. Denham
  We allocate funding to health authorities on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each health authority's target fair share of available resources, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need.

  For 2000–01, North Essex Health Authority's allocation per weighted head of the population is £687, compared to the average for England of £688.

  Health authorities allocate resources direct to their primary care groups in accordance with national guidelines. The formula used to set targets for primary care groups is essentially that used for health authorities. Health authorities determine the pace of change at which individual primary care groups within their area move towards their fair share targets.

  North Essex Health Authority is currently calculating Colchester Primary Care Group's budget for 2000–01.

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained osteopaths have been compelled to cease practising since the introduction of the provisions of the Osteopaths Act 1993; what assessment he has made of the operation of the personal and professional profile process; and if he will make a statement. [121111]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 May 2000]Under the provisions of the Osteopaths Act 1993, the General Osteopathic Council is responsible for the development, promotion and regulation of the profession of osteopathy. During the transitional period of registration, which ended on 8 May 2000, the Council decided to require all applicants to complete an extensive 'professional profile and portfolio' as evidence that they meet its criteria for
  233W
  the safe, lawful and competent practice of osteopathy. In some cases the registrar may also request an interview or a test of clinical competence before making a decision.

  We were not involved in the development of the 'professional profile and portfolio', but it appears to be based firmly on the principles of determining competence and could form a basis for professional lifelong learning. It is an innovative and comprehensive approach which should go a long way towards giving the public the assurance they deserve that all registered osteopaths are able to practice osteopathy safely and competently.

  It is an inevitable consequence of an effective professional self-regulatory scheme that, either at its inception or subsequently, some practitioners will not meet the standard required for safe and competent practice and will either have to take remedial training or find alternative employment. From information provided by the General Osteopathic Council, of the 1,911 practitioners whose applications for registration have been decided so far only 80 have been refused.

  NHS (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people his Department estimates are eligible to claim financial help with(a) NHS prescriptions, (b) NHS dental treatment, (c) NHS wigs and fabric supports and (d) travel to hospital for NHS treatment. [122780]

  Mr. Denham
  In England, it is estimated that the following are eligible to claim financial help when they incur costs for:

  (a) National Health Service prescriptions

  10 million children under 16

  1 million young people aged 16–18 who are in full time education

  10 million people aged 60 or more

  5 million people under 60 on low income grounds

  up to 0.3 million war pensioners where treatment is for their pensionable disability

  0.8 million people holding an exemption certificate because they are suffering from specified medical conditions

  0.7 million women holding an exemption certificate because they are pregnant or who have had a child in the past 12 months;

  (b) NHS dental treatment

  10 million children under 16

  1.2 million young people aged 16 and 17 plus 0.2 million aged

  18 who are in full time education

  6.5 million people on low income grounds

  0.9 million women who are pregnant or who have had a child in the past 12 months

  up to 0.3 million war pensioners where treatment is for their pensionable disability

  (c) NHS wigs and fabric supports

  10 million children under 16

  1 million young people aged 16–18 who are in full time education

  6.5 million people on low income grounds

  up to 0.3 million war pensioners where treatment is for their pensionable disability

  (d) Travel to hospital for NHS treatment

  6.5 million people on low income grounds. In addition to this figure, their children and dependent young people will also be entitled to help.

  Up to 0.3 million war pensioners where treatment is for their pensionable disability

  (e) There is no charge for prescribed contraceptives.

  234W
  In addition, around 0.3 million people may be eligible for financial assistance on a sliding scale with the costs of (b), (c) and (d) because they are named on an NHS charges certificate for limited help.

  The figures cannot be totalled as there will be overlap between the groups; for example, women who have had a child in the past 12 months might also be on a low income, many war pensioners will be entitled to free prescriptions on age grounds.

  NHS Messaging
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average cost is of sending externally a 1Mb message from an NHS organisation; [124090]

  (2) if his Department has estimated the cost of sending externally a 1Mb message from an NHS organisation using an alternate SMPT Internet Mail system. [124091]

  Ms Stuart
  From 1 April 1999 the full cost of messaging is now met directly by the National Health Service Information Authority and financed by money from health authority annual allocations. The current tariff and discount structure is negotiated centrally with the service providers and is based on overall volume of traffic, so that incremental costs per individual message are not calculated. The average cost per message at current use and discount rates is 1.2p.

  Chief Executive (Eastbourne)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 309W, what was the work undertaken at Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust in Maidstone by the former Chief Executive of Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust; what was the total cost of this work; and which part of the NHS funded the work. [124370]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The former chief executive of Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust contributed towards the preparation of an outline business case for the proposed relocation of ophthalmology services at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells National Health Service Trust.

  The total cost of the work amounted to six months of the former chief executive's salary. Costs were met by the Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Food Labelling
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the use of the word pure in connection with food. [124491]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The Food Advisory Committee has issued guidelines on the use of the word "natural" and similar terms such as "real", "genuine" and "pure" in the labelling and advertising of foods. The Committee is currently considering the need for further action and is expected to make recommendations to the Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for food labelling, later this year.

  The Food Safety Act 1990 already makes it an offence to describe any food in a way that is false or likely to mislead as to its nature, substance or quality.

  Abdominal Scans
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for abdominal scans is(a) nationally, (b) in Sheffield, (c) in Doncaster, (d) in Barnsley and (e) in Rotherham. [124573]

  Mr. Denham
  Data on the length of the waiting list and how long people are waiting are not collected at the level of individual diagnostic procedures.

  MRSA
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on measures taken to deal with MRSA. [122865]

  Yvette Cooper
  Control of infection in hospitals, including MRSA, is a subject that the Government take very seriously, and one on which we are determined 236W
  action will be taken. Tackling it has been set as a "must-do" for the National Health Service. A timetabled programme of action is under way to strengthen infection control arrangements and deliver improvements.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned into the potential health effects of chemical leakage from mobile phone handsets. [122814]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have not undertaken or commissioned any research in this area. The most likely potential health effects from leakage would be from the battery. All batteries in mobile phones should comply with the appropriate CENELEC or IEC standards.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to chair the 23rd European Ministers of Justice Conference in London on Thursday 8th June when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Hijacks: Airport Contingency Plans
2.35 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Rodingasked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the outcome of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' review of the use of Stansted airport as the Government's preferred airport for dealing with hijacks, following the major hijack incident involving an Ariana Boeing 727 in February.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, as noted in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on 15th February, all UK airports must be capable of handling hijacked aircraft. Policy on handling of hijacks is reviewed as a matter of course after an incident such as that at Stansted. The review is well under way but, for security reasons, the results will not be made public.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that the review will take account of the fact that when Stansted first became the preferred location for dealing with hijacked aircraft there were fewer than 250,000 passengers a year using it. Is the Minister aware that the figure is now close on 10 million a year and that statistics published over the weekend demonstrate that, with an increase of 37.5 per cent, Stansted has the second biggest increase in throughput of passengers in the world? Is it not time to choose an airport where hijacks would cause far less disruption, fewer diversions and fewer cancelled flights? These incidents are an enormous inconvenience of the travelling public.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of the increase in traffic at Stansted, an airport which has advantages
1040
over other London airports because it is easier to reduce disruption to air traffic and to isolate aircraft more effectively. The United Kingdom has a national aviation security programme which recommends that all airport managers should produce and develop contingency plans for an aircraft hijack in consultation with local police authorities.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absolute nonsense for the Government to declare that a particular airfield, aerodrome or airport is to be used for hijacked aircraft? Would not terrorists regard that information as most useful? Should not the Government continue to utilise the airports which are most convenient for planes which are hijacked rather than designate a specific airport?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful again for that intervention. I stress that the Government have not singled out any one particular airport. All airports are required to have in place security programmes as recommended through our national aviation security plans.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister referred to requirements placed on all airport managers. Do they include military airports? On the assumption that one of the priorities in dealing with a hijack is to minimise inconvenience to the public, the use of a military airfield to receive a hijacked aircraft would have many advantages over a civil airfield.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the primary consideration clearly is to ensure the safety of the people on the aircraft and on the ground. It might not be conducive to that if hijackers feared they were flying into a military airfield. Our plans cover commercial airports.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, having access to an understanding on how to influence the Taliban is a principal challenge. What is being done in that regard? And who were we dealing with in matters relating to the hijack?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I sit beside my noble and learned colleague Lord Williams of Mostyn who no doubt would confirm that the issues in this case are now sub judice.

Oath of Loyalty: Northern Ireland Queen's Counsel
2.40 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take about the oath of loyalty to the Queen traditionally sworn by Queen's Counsel in Northern Ireland.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question assumes that, at present, new Queen's

1041
Counsel in Northern Ireland swear an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty. That is a false assumption. In fact there has been no such requirement since 1995 when the previous administration decided that the oath would no longer be administered but that a declaration should be made in the same terms as that made in England and Wales.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that clarificatory Answer. However, I have read of the recent court ruling about the so-called oath taken by Queen's Counsel and reports of the attitude originally taken by the Lord Chancellor. Therefore perhaps I may congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his wholly admirable, wholly robust and characteristically firm ruling on this matter.
Is he aware that many people have been worried, for example, about the recommendation of an official report that symbols of royalty should be removed from courts in Northern Ireland; and about moves on other symbols such as the name and the cap badge of the RUC. Whatever decisions come before the noble and learned Lord to be considered, may I ask him to bear those considerations in mind because they cause anxiety?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes.

UK Foreign Language Needs
2.42 p.m.
Lord Quirkasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to respond to the final report of the Nuffield inquiry into the United Kingdom's foreign language needs over the next 20 years.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, we regard it as very important that we have the right level of language capability to help us compete in global markets. The Government will consider the recommendations over the coming months and a cross-departmental working group will reflect views across Whitehall.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. While the report duly acknowledges that in this country, including our industry, we neglect other languages partly through an exaggerated perception of the current world-wide status of English, will the Minister agree that it makes some valuable suggestions on a wide range of matters such as the training of teachers and the needs of business in languages far beyond the standard fare of GCSE French?
Will the Minister (though I recognise that this is outside his normal bailiwick) comment on the Government's likely reaction to one particular recommendation in the Nuffield report which seems to
1042
me to be of special interest? It is to create a new category of primary schools, perhaps 1,000 in all, which will specialise in foreign languages and enable parents to have a choice of their children learning German, Russian or even Mandarin; and to have that target language, whatever it may be, the medium of instruction from as young an age as perhaps six or seven?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we agree that the Nuffield report makes some valuable suggestions and we shall review them with a cross-departmental group over the coming months. As regards teaching children in primary schools, the research on early language learning suggests that benefits are mixed and that children introduced to a formal learning structure at secondary level achieve results on a par with those who have studied at primary level.
However, our Early Language Learning Initiative, which is managed by the Centre for Information on Language, Teaching and Research, will give practical help to primary schools in teaching languages. Over two years, the project will develop high quality curriculum materials for teachers, develop and disseminate models of good practice and establish a network of practitioners.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, why is the Minister so confident that the English state is right in teaching languages only at secondary level, whereas in every part of Europe they are taught at primary level? Should he not advise his noble friends that we might be wrong and that the French, the Germans, the Hungarians and everyone else might be right and that languages should be taught at an earlier level? And I remind the Minister that when he was at an independent school, it did!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if that were the case, it was a prime example of why such a policy failed! As I hope my original Answer made clear, we are not rejecting the proposals. We have examined the evidence and are taking initiatives to encourage such teaching on a wider scale.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister believe that, in addition to the impact of this excellent report on business and education, he could encourage politicians to give a lead in making such learning more widely known and accepted? Is he aware that for Members of this House the German Embassy sponsors a language class Thursday lunchtimes and that the average attendance is two? Could he encourage some of the new Members of this House to take advantage of the generosity of the German Embassy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the two Members who attend. I am happy to place my full weight behind encouraging more people to do so.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the research to which the Minister has referred shed light on why Britain seems to be so bad at teaching foreign languages and why other countries are more effective, and what lessons we can learn from their experience?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is not clear that the lack of language competence is due to failures of teaching; it may be due to failures of motivation. What is worrying is the number of people in this country who are happy not to know foreign languages. It is as much an issue of motivation and the ease of travelling around the world with English as it is of failures of teaching.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the experience in Wales, where children are taught Welsh at primary level, indicates that they gain a head start not only in their ability to speak Welsh but all other languages which they then attempt to learn?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is an admirable example and one upon which we should all reflect.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the difficulties which arise at secondary level when some primary schools have taught French and some have not? That is where schemes have previously fallen down.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is not a subject with which I am familiar. I shall write to the noble Earl about the matter.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a large part of the Nuffield report deals with languages in business? Does my noble friend agree that skill in languages is a key to success in overseas markets?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the answer to that is emphatically "yes". The present situation is that, even today, exports to countries where the main language is not English amount, I believe, to approximately 60 per cent of the UK's total exports. It is quite clear that some of our major markets for the future lie outside the non-English speaking markets, such as east Asia and Latin America. Therefore, we believe strongly that it is necessary to have a mastery of language in order to exploit those markets.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, does the Minister recall the words of the Prime Minister in August 1998 in a published letter saying:
"There has never been a time when the ability to communicate with other cultures and in their own languages was more important to our nation's well-being and prosperity"?
Are the Government making this a point of national policy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course, I well remember the Prime Minister's remarks. As I hope I made clear, our response to the report is cross-departmental and we want to carry this out on a cross-departmental basis because we believe that it is of major importance.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the previous government introduced a foreign language into the national curriculum. Can the Minister tell the House whether pupils leaving school are gaining an increasing number of passes at GSCE and A-levels?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that from 1992 to 1999 there was a decline in the number of pupils taking A-levels. However, I believe that the pass rate increased significantly.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Sierra Leone. The Statement is likely to be taken immediately before the debate on Clause 108 stand part.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 46,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 47 to 57,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 58 to 73,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clause 74.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Terrorism Bill
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 66 to 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Conviction during remission]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 39, line 21, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 160, 162, 163, 192, 197A, 197B, 198, 202A, 203, 204, 205, 205A and 205B are all government amendments. In moving Amendment No. 160, I shall speak to the other amendments in this group. I can do so briefly.
Amendments Nos. 160 to 168 and 205A and 205B are drafting amendments. They include those recommended by parliamentary counsel and make drafting improvements to the Bill. The other amendments in the group are all technical amendments to Schedule 15, which deals with consequential amendments. They do not reflect any change of policy. I should be happy to explain the purpose of each of the amendments, if necessary. However, if the Committee does not require further explanation, I beg to move Amendment No. 160.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 84 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Power to stop and question]:
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Sections 81 to 94: supplementary]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 162 and 163:
Page 46, line 22, after ("(3)") insert (", 8").
Page 46, line 25, leave out ("7") and insert ("8").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause—
DETENTION OF TERRORISTS
(" . Schedule (Detention of terrorists) shall have effect with respect to the detention of terrorists and persons suspected of being terrorists.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 164, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 165. These amendments concern internment. Under the Conservative government internment remained part of the terrorism legislation for Northern Ireland. In, I believe, 1998, the present Government chose to remove it. At the time, we said that we believed that to be a mistake. We still believe it to be a mistake, although I believe it is fair to say that for a period it appeared not to be useful.
1046
However, I believe that a number of factors, some of which have arisen recently, are very important. First and most importantly, the people with whom the Government are dealing on the friendly side are in the Irish Republic. So far as concerns terrorism, the Irish Government are very much our partners in managing the problems of Northern Ireland. They still have internment on the statute books. They are probably wiser than most of us in these matters. They have had experience of Sinn Fein/IRA, the IRA and various other forms of Irish terrorist organisations for longer than the life of Northern Ireland. Some of them may still remember the days when it all started.
On a more positive note, it appears that there may be a road of peace ahead of us. Those who were considered our enemies are now sitting down in government. They are sitting down in a British government, which they feel very uncomfortable about. They are sitting down with colleagues of Unionist persuasions who feel even more uncomfortable that they are sitting with Sinn Fein.
However, history tells us (and we do not have to look back many years) that the pattern of Irish terrorism evolves frequently in the same way. Some sort of peace is made and then there are dissident groups. Once again, we see the dissident groups of republicanism flexing their muscles and currently making a serious nuisance of themselves. I do not think I am giving away any secrets; most of it is in the press. The intelligence reports state that the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are two organisations which work pretty closely together with many youngsters but one or two, or three or four, well-qualified terrorists.
I was not in the country at the time of the Hammersmith Bridge bomb but heard about it within hours of it happening, as I am sure did most of Europe. We know the gentleman who made that bomb. We know where he lives. When I say "we" I use the term loosely. The Irish Government and the Garda Siochana know. His signature was very clear.
Changing tack a little, in the 1970s, internment was a failure. There is no doubt that it was badly used by British governments and that it fell into serious disrepute. We had little intelligence and no moles, spies or intelligence agents within the IRA. We interned foot soldiers but rarely officers and never generals. Now, life has moved on. I can speak only from when my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew left power. At that stage we had an extremely sophisticated, competent, reliable intelligence force or forces operating within Ireland both within and outwith the IRA, feeding those who needed to know extremely hard, good, reliable information.
On the assumption that the present Government have not reduced that level of intelligence in any way—I have no reason to believe they have—we should still have a significant level of intelligence. I hope I demonstrated that a few moments ago by telling noble Lords that it did not take very long for the intelligence service to inform those in authority and in need of knowledge who made the Hammersmith bomb, where he lived, and so forth.

1047
That might be a one-off. Noble Lords have often heard me play devil's advocate and cynical advocate on Northern Ireland from this Box. They will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not have great faith in the political future as it stands. I wish I had, but I do not. I am pretty confident that the strength, knowledge and technology of what are now called the dissident groups will rapidly increase. I believe that both governments, Westminster and Dublin, will wish to work closely together, decisively and swiftly, to stop a major increase in and spread of terrorism by new dissident groups. I suggest that one way to do that is to have the power of internment on the statute book. Whether or when it would ever be used, one never knows.
The Bill is not a high-profile, Irish anti-terrorist Bill but one which the Government are rightly introducing to help tidy up our terrorist legislation and help protect the United Kingdom from international terrorism. If internment was put onto the face of the Bill, there could be an occasion when, working together with Dublin and possibly all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein/IRA and the republican movement, a decision is taken secretly and decisively that certain people should be quickly picked up, taken out of Ireland and interned for as long as it takes to deal with a situation. If internment was on the statute book, I believe it would be possible to save many lives and to save a significant increase in destruction.
Furthermore, for those concerned with human rights, as indeed I am, as one is duty bound to be, there is an inordinate amount of protection in the old Act for those arrested under internment legislation. It would not be dealt with lightly. The powers are already available to lift/arrest people for a short period of time. I cannot remember the number of days. However, I believe there are up to 40 weeks before the internment procedure would have to be turned on and decisions made as to whether such people were arrested and interned for a considerable time.
In summary, I believe that this would be in the interests of the safety of this country, Northern Ireland, and perhaps even Ireland. The Irish Government could not use internment if we did not also do so. I believe that is the present political situation. If tucked away in this Bill, the amendment could become a powerful weapon in the fight against future Irish terrorism. I believe that we now have the intelligence services and technology to use it intelligently and selectively. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: To those on these Benches, the amendments are completely unacceptable, both on practical and legal grounds. Detention or internment, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran called it, was, as we all know, tried at an early stage of the troubles in Northern Ireland. It caused immense not only among the republicans but among the whole of the nationalist population in Northern Ireland. It was an immensely powerful recruiting sergeant for the IRA. I believe that if detention was re-introduced in the
1048
context of Northern Ireland, it would have exactly that effect again. It also caused immense ill will among the people of the Republic of Ireland.
I believe that detention in Northern Ireland, even if introduced at the same time as detention in the Republic of Ireland, would seriously risk creating the same level of once again. It is a blunt instrument which does a great deal of damage, not only to the people it is intended to damage but to the whole community in Northern Ireland.
It was abandoned after a relatively few years. Even if it remained on the statute book, it was never brought back during the 18 years of Conservative government starting in 1979. I believe that it would be disastrous on practical grounds.
Legally, there is a plain conflict between the amendments and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under that article, detention is permitted only after conviction or pending trial. The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to order detention for an indefinite period without trial on the basis of a report by an adviser. If a detainee does not ask for his or her representations to be submitted to the adviser, there will not even be a report.
The post of adviser is not a judicial office and proceedings before an adviser are not judicial proceedings. It is true that judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State under these amendments would not be excluded. But judicial review, with its difficult test of irrationality, would not be enough to satisfy Article 5 of the European convention.
It is true that a crisis could arise which was so acute that detention was a reasonable cause of action. The detention of Sir Oswald Mosley and other Nazi supporters in 1939 was plainly justified by the level of crisis prevailing at the time. Both the European convention and the Human Rights Act recognise that special circumstances of that kind may arise by allowing derogation in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation. But that derogation must be only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. Those powers can be found in Article 15 of the European convention and in Sections 14 to 18 of the Human Rights Act.
A derogation from Article 5 to authorise the detention of suspected terrorists for a period up to seven days without access to the court has been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in the Brannigan case. So the European court recognises that special circumstances may occur. If the power of detention under these amendments could be exercised only after the Secretary of State made a derogation order under the European convention and under the Human Rights Act, and if that power was also subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses to confirm it within 40 days of its coming into effect, then I accept that our objections would be a good deal less strong. But it is arguable that, even so, the breach of a right to liberty is so fundamental that the insertion of a power of detention should require primary legislation.

1049
In a real crisis, as it has shown on many occasions before and several times in relation to Northern Ireland, Parliament can act very quickly. And I find it difficult to understand why the Conservatives have not linked their proposal to insert a power of detention into the Bill to the making of a derogation order. As the amendment now stands, we have no hesitation in opposing it. We believe that it is both contrary to the law and, in practical terms, presents no advantage whatever.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sits down, can he say whether or not the Irish Republic retains the power to intern on its statute book?
Lord Goodhart: I cannot speak for the Irish Republic in saying why it retained that power of detention. The Irish Republic, like ourselves, is party to the European Convention on Human Rights. In the circumstances, since plainly there is no immediate threat to the nation, any exercise of the power of detention by the Irish Republic would not pass the European court.
Lord Desai: I rise briefly to say that one argument against the noble Lord's amendment is that internment did not work last time. It will add problems to the present delicate situation and we are better off without it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It seems to me that those who have held office, especially myself, go back to that period of office to illustrate any point they want to make and I am sorry not to be able to avoid that today. However, perhaps the Committee will indulge me for a brief time.
It was always in the back of my mind when I had the privilege of implementing the policies of the government in which I served that a number of extra miles could justifiably be travelled, and I believe that those miles have been travelled to beneficial effect. But it was also in my mind that at the end of that process we would probably be left with a hard core of extremely evil, violent, fanatical people. I am afraid that recent events have shown that the latter part of that expectation has been fulfilled.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the undesirability of having to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights if that were necessary, but he reminded us, fairly, that we have already done that and had that derogation upheld by the court. To do that impinges upon the human rights of liberty. But it also impinges upon the human rights of liberty, and indeed of life, if one happens to be a visitor or townsperson in Omagh when the Continuity or Real IRA explodes a bomb which kills or maims oneself or one's family. Not for the first time, therefore, we must strike a balance.
1050
I welcome the close relationship that the present Government have, and indeed my government had though I am sure that that has been developed by the present Government, with the Republic of Ireland. That relationship ought to enable the Minister to answer the question already alluded to this afternoon as to why the Republic of Ireland retained internment on its statute book. After all, it has made much wider use of detention than the United Kingdom ever did in Ireland, and it must be said much better use—that would not be difficult for the reasons already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Glentoran. But in the legislation introduced following the Good Friday agreement, it was notable that the republic did not take the opportunity to remove from the statute book the power to detain within its jurisdiction. Why not? The answer will have an important bearing on the decision of the Committee if there is a Division on that question today. I hope therefore that the Minister can give us an answer. No doubt the question has already been raised with him and it will not be a breach of confidence for him to tell us.
It is axiomatic that, if detention is to be of any use at all, it has to be available on both sides of the Border to be implemented at one and the same time. I am aware of the disadvantages of detention. In considering the amendment I was troubled by the undoubted discord that it would occasion at a time when there are propitious signs for advance. But I always believed it to be right to retain it, for the reasons I have tried to advance. Indeed, I opposed its removal by the present Government two or more years ago. Unless I hear a compelling response from the Minister, recognising the disadvantages, I feel that the balance now lies in favour of restoring detention.
Lord Dubs: We have debated the question of internment in this Chamber on more than one occasion in the past three years. On each occasion it was felt appropriate not to restore that power. I am not persuaded that anything has changed which suggests that it should now be brought back. After all, the devolved Assembly is back in operation—it met for the first time yesterday following the restoration of powers to the Executive. At this time of all times, to say that we will take powers possibly to use them in circumstances undefined would be provocative and would be misunderstood in the whole of Northern Ireland. It would be seen as a signal of the Government's possible intention to give effect to internment.
I think the onus is on the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and those who support him to indicate the circumstances in which a power of this kind could be used. It is hard to find any. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had the power of internment at his disposal during the years he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Yet—and perhaps he can tell us—I am not aware that there was any occasion during his time in office, and indeed during the time of two or three of his predecessors, when it was thought appropriate to give effect to the power of internment. If it were not necessary in the days when the IRA was unleashing its campaign of bombs and murder, I do

1051
not understand why we need to have it now when the IRA is on cease-fire and when we are left with a small number of dissident groups—one or two on the republican side and one or two on the loyalist side—who are not on cease-fire.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The noble Lord has invited me to intervene. I was in the process of travelling the extra miles and those extra miles have now been travelled to very beneficial effect. Still we have the very evil hard core. Next time it may not be two pounds under Hammersmith Bridge; next time it may be an attack which replicates or even goes further than what occurred in Omagh. That is the only kind of occasion for which it would be appropriate.
Lord Dubs: I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but I still do not agree that it would be appropriate to use internment in such circumstances. Over the years we have had terrible outrages—with perhaps not as many people killed and injured as at Omagh—yet it was not thought appropriate to intern the perpetrators in so far as they were known to the Government and to the intelligence services. Today, we mercifully have only a small number of individuals involved in terrorist organisations that are not on cease-fire and it seems to me that it is therefore not the time to use such an onerous power against them, nor indeed has it been suggested today that we should use it.
I ask again: in what circumstances would the noble and learned Lord suggest that we use such a power? Without that guidance, it is hard to think of a situation when we, as a country, would wish that power to be used in our name, unless the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that that power would be used immediately.
For a country that believes emphatically in the rule of law to abdicate that belief in legislation on the supposition that at some unstated point in the future we alight wish to use it is not the right way forward. I believe the Government are right to resist reintroducing the power of internment. At the moment, there is no reason for us to have that power on the statute book and I hope that the House will resist the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: The noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Goodhart, said that when the power was used in the 1970s it was counterproductive; that it was a recruiting sergeant for violence; and that it was later not used. Surely the answer to them is that we have moved on a very long way since then in two important respects.
First, the main protagonists on the nationalist side—Sinn Fein/IRA—has agreed, by joining the Executive and by taking part in the power sharing, not to continue with terrorist tactics. Secondly, the co-operation and collaboration between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland is at a level totally different from what it was in those early days. It seems to me that the answer which should be given by the Minister is not only as to why the Republic of Ireland has thought it necessary to
1052
retain this power but also whether the Republic would feel it would be helpful for us to have this power to deal with a minority so small, so violent, so irrational and so evil that they appear even to be abandoned by Sinn Fein/IRA.
Lord Richard: I did not intend to take part in this debate at all but I am bound to say that, having listened to some of the speeches that have been made on the other side of the House, I am profoundly disturbed at the possibility that this Committee may divide on the issue.
I make one point from my past experience, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, did from his. I sat on that side of the House when we were in Opposition and gave strong support in almost totality for the policies which the then government were promulgating. It was not an easy thing to do. From time to time I was considerably disturbed at the fact that my party had pledged that sort of support for the then government, of whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was such an ornament. However, we did it, and I find the idea that, at this time when events in Northern Ireland are at a stage of such delicacy, the Conservative Opposition are going to divide this House on the issue of whether internment should be restored a staggering proposition.
I make two other points on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, started his speech by saying that the Irish Government still have this power and that therefore we should have it. I am not actually aware—I may be wrong because I am not privy now to the intelligence sources that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in opposition obviously is—that the Irish Government are agitating very hard that the British Government should reintroduce this provision. I have not heard very much coming out of Dublin to say that there is this imbalance across the Border which necessitates us now to reintroduce a policy which has proved a failure in the past. It was a failure.
Lord Glentoran: That was a slight misinterpretation of a point that I made. I made the point that the Irish Government have retained the right to internment. I did not suggest that they had made recommendations or suggestions that we should do the same. But I made the point that they cannot use that power if we do not have it available, and I gave several examples of how it may want to be used.
Lord Richard: I hear what the noble Lord says. But I do not think the point is given greater force by repetition, if I may put it that kindly. It seems to me that the argument was that the Irish have the power; the British do not have the power; and that somehow that creates an imbalance and a difficulty which we should put right. I do not believe that. I have not detected any great sense of urgency on the part of the Irish Government that this imbalance should be corrected and that this anomaly should be removed.

1053
The final point I would make is simply this. I cannot imagine—I can imagine some things, but this is in the category of those that I find difficult to imagine—anything more provocative to the republicans or the nationalists in Northern Ireland than the reintroduction of internment by the British Government. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to say that Sinn Fein is now part of the establishment in Northern Ireland and therefore it would not be directed at it; it would be directed only at the dissident fringes. I do not believe that is how it would be received at all in Northern Ireland. It would be received, if it were to be reintroduced, with great joy on the part of some dissident unionists and absolute rejection on the part of most nationalists, moderate and extreme.
I hope that the Opposition will ponder very hard indeed before they go down the road which appears to be indicated this afternoon. This is not a time and this is not an issue upon which this House should divide.
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, puts his case clearly and simply. He says that his proposed amendment is in the interests of safety because the Irish Government have that power and they could not use it if we do not have the power. He said that having this amendment could be a very valuable weapon "tucked away" in this Bill.
First, as regards the position of the Irish Government, the Irish Government have commissioned a wide-ranging, independently chaired review of their offences against the state legislation, including the internment powers. That review is in accordance with what was agreed in the Good Friday agreement. So with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the fact that they did not repeal the powers immediately after the Good Friday agreement is not necessarily as strong a point as he suggested.
I understand that it may be some months before the review reports. The offences against the state legislation is complex and covers a wide range of police powers and court procedures. So it is more than simply a matter of considering the internment power. It is right to say that the Irish have the internment powers now. Whether they are retained remains to be seen. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Irish Government.
Finally, the Irish Government have exerted no pressure whatever on the UK Government to introduce those powers. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—in my view, rightly—that the Irish Government were wise in a number of areas in that respect. The fact that they are not pressurising us in any way to reintroduce internment brings its own message.
Secondly, he says that having this provision would be a very valuable weapon "tucked away" in this Bill. We need to examine that proposition very carefully indeed. The Government's position remains that while
1054
we never say "never", we remain to be convinced that internment could be an effective security policy. That is why we removed the power in 1998 in accordance with our previously given commitment. We still remain firmly of the view that reintroducing the internment powers at this time would be a retrograde step. I welcome the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others in that respect.
Perhaps we may, for a moment, take stock of where we are today. We are in the very welcome position that devolution has recently returned to Northern Ireland. It is hoped that the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, in full, is in sight. Indeed, this Bill is a reflection of the Government's commitment under the agreement to remove emergency powers as soon as it is safe to do so.
In that context, we need to consider very carefully indeed the value of the amendments. In our view, they would mark a significant backward step at a time when we are normalising the security situation in Northern Ireland.
In advancing his argument, I think that it is incumbent on the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to answer a few points. What signal would it send out at this time to return these powers to the statute book? In what way does he think it would build security and confidence in our security policy? I reject the proposition that this measure is necessary to protect the democratic institutions. We have a firm and fairly applied security policy in Northern Ireland which must be recognisably within the rule of law if we are to maintain public confidence.
We need to consider also in what circumstances the powers would be used. We cannot and should not legislate for hypothetical situations. Again, I feel that it is incumbent on the noble Lord to set out his position on this point. When does he say that those powers would be used? It is not sufficient, as was said in another place, to advocate the reintroduction of those powers on a just-in-case basis or to rely on the argument that the powers send out a useful warning signal.
To put it bluntly, if we reintroduce those powers we must be prepared to use them. The amendments take us in the opposite direction to the policy of normalising the security situation in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, their use would require a derogation from the European convention.
The noble Lord must consider the significant downside to what may be a short-term security gain if those powers were used. As has been acknowledged throughout the course of the debate, it is widely accepted that the last operation of the internment powers led to significant recruitment by the terrorist organisations. It does not necessarily follow that better intelligence and targeting of the powers would avoid similar consequences today.
We must also consider the effects on the wider community. Of course, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would not be tempted to join a terrorist organisation in any circumstances. But what

1055
damage would be done to their faith in the peace process if the Government took such a draconian step? Can the noble Lord imagine moderate opinion on both sides of the community supporting such a measure? For a short-term gain we may face a long-term worsening of cross-community relations and a lack of faith in the Government's security policy. I think it is rather optimistic to describe the power as being "tucked away" in this Bill.
I appreciate that the amendments are tabled with a genuine concern for the maintenance of a good security situation in Northern Ireland. But in this climate, we do not believe that the amendments are helpful. In fact, they would be damaging. As I said at the outset, our position remains that we would never say "never", but we believe firmly that there is no call for these provisions at this time.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider very carefully indeed his position in relation to the amendments and will not press them.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that, when in opposition, he had supported the policy of the Conservative government. But that is not entirely true of the Labour Party in another place, as I have good reason to recall.
But it is also the case that, from these Benches, both in this place and another, throughout the past several years since 1997, we have supported the Labour Government in what they have done. We have done so with hope at all times, sometimes with a heavy heart and sometimes by giving advice, both privately and publicly, as to how we thought matters should operate. But, nevertheless, we have given a great deal of support. That does not necessarily mean that we should for ever support the Government in whatever they do without making any differences at all.
But this is a particular difference which we are now considering. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke of the European convention derogation and so on. I believe that for a number of years the Northern Ireland situation has been, and still is, a potential public emergency threatening the life of the nation— I use the words of the convention. After all, the basic objective of Sinn Fein/IRA concerns the integrity of our national territory. It is about whether part of our national territory should be taken away and put under another jurisdiction against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants there. That is what this argument is all about. In my judgment, that is a threat to the life of the nation which is supported, from time to time violently, by a very small number of people but, nevertheless, a number capable of doing a great deal of damage.
I should not object to at least some modification of the detail of the amendment; for example, the affirmative order to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred. But that does not go to the nub of the question. I am not arguing about the precise detail of the amendment before us.
We have been asked a number of times—and have endeavoured to explain a number of times—about the circumstances in which we think it likely that executive
1056
detention, internment, might be a valuable addition to security policy. I cannot add much to what was said by my noble friend Lord Glentoran and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew about the possible scenario in which we continue to have a successful Assembly and Executive but in which there are still a small number of very evil dissidents who resist what is happening.
As has been pointed out, we have seen them in action this time round, as it were, in Omagh, and on Hammersmith Bridge just the other day. Irish history tells us that that has happened on almost every occasion when there has been an agreement of some sort in the past. It is highly likely that we shall be faced with small groups capable of extreme violence.
Those are the circumstances in which internment may be necessary because of the great difficulties—of which we have had 30 years' experience, if not more—which exist in convicting terrorists in the normal courts of law, even as modified—the Diplock courts and so on. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pointed out, they threaten the rights of those people who get mixed up in their ghastly acts; as, indeed, their own rights are threatened by this amendment and the powers that it represents.
None of us supposes that what we are suggesting by way of this amendment should be used next week, next month or whenever. We are not suggesting a precise scenario or that the power should be effective at once; we are suggesting that it should be a reserve power and that it should be retained. It is in fact retained because it is still in primary legislation, even though it was not renewed the last time out, as it were, by secondary legislation. We need to retain the power because, unless it is in primary legislation, it cannot be used.
Internment would not be a success without a number of factors being present, some of which have already been mentioned; for example, it would not be a success without the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland. Moreover, as we have heard, it would require extremely good intelligence and its operation needs to be absolutely sudden. It cannot wait even for accelerated primary legislation to pass through this and the other place. Should the Government wish to do so—they have done so occasionally—the fastest that we can pass any Bill and put it on the statute hook is about a day, or so. But a day is enough for the individuals concerned to vanish, go underground and make the internment ineffective in the first instance. Indeed, it would probably continue to be ineffective. That is why the power needs to remain, so to speak, under the counter.
There is another effect to which I have drawn noble Lords' attention on previous occasions when we discussed the matter. I refer to the fact that the very existence of the power makes operations more complex for evil groups, because the very thought that it might be introduced makes them take precautionary measures which make their lives more difficult.

1057
The Minister said that the Government would "never say never", but, if we do not have this power in the Bill, we are in effect saying "never" to internment because we could not introduce it as primary legislation and expect to be able to use it the following day. For all those reasons, I believe it is important for us to retain the power on the statute book. I commend the amendment to noble Lords and wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 164) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 156.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Attlee, E.

McConnell, L.

Blackwell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blaker, L.

Marsh, L.

Boardman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Northbrook, L.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Onslow, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Courtown, E.

Plumb, L.

Cox, B.

Rawlings, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elles, B.

Rogan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Erroll, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Haslam, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Tebbit, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Warnock, B.

Kimball, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kingsland, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Laird, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Andrews. B.

Barker, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

1058

Bernstein of Craigwell, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Billingham, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blood, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Borrie, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bragg, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bridges, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Burlison, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carnarvon, E.

McNally, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Christopher, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Northover, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Patel, L.

Dholakia, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rea, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Filkin, L.

Roper, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gale, B.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilbert, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sewel, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Shepherd, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Goudie, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

Grabiner, L.

Slim, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Greaves, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Greengross, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Healey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Tope, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Varley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Walmsley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Weatherill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jeger, B.

Whitty, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilkins, B.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.53 p.m.
Clauses 96 to 98 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Video recording: code of practice]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 48, line 31, at end insert ("if they take place in a police station (within the meaning of Schedule 8)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 agreed to.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 106 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Private Security Services]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 167:
Page 136, line 33, after ("Chancellor") insert ("by statutory instrument").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 are drafting amendments. These amendments include those recommended by parliamentary counsel and make drafting improvements to the Bill.
Amendment No. 167 is a drafting amendment to put beyond doubt the status of the Lord Chancellor's rules and to ensure consistency with other references in the Bill. The rules in question are made under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and relate to the national security certificate tribunal established under that Act. Amendment No. 168 is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I realise that Amendment No. 168 is highly technical but it would help the Committee if the noble Lord explained what it seeks to achieve. It appears to concern certificates of the Secretary of State which relate to licences and other matters being sent by post. It seems odd to have a special regime to deliver such certificates.
Lord Bach: I am not certain what the answer to the noble Lord's point is. If it reaches me shortly, I shall tell him what it is; if not, I shall write to him in due course.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I look forward to receiving a letter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 168:
Page 138, line 45, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Specified organisations: interpretation]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 51, line 6, at beginning insert ("either—
(i)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 169, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 170 and 171. These amendments seek to strengthen and—if I may say this without causing offence—to tidy up the provisions concerning proscribed organisations under the Bill and specified organisations under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
As the Bill stands, only organisations that are specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and are also proscribed under the Bill would be subject to some of the emergency legislation introduced after Omagh. Organisations such as the IRA, the UVF and the UDA would be excluded. We do not feel that this can be justified. Our amendments would tighten the definition for specification under the Terrorism Bill to include organisations that are not, for example, decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives. In short, we want to remove from this Bill the subjectivity in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act.
The Bill defines a specified organisation as one which is specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Bill and is therefore listed in Schedule 2. At present the Real IRA, the INLA, the Provisional IRA and Continuity IRA are not proscribed. In order to be specified under the Terrorism Bill an organisation has to be both specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Continuity IRA and the Real IRA are proscribed under that Act.
4 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. Can he therefore confirm that "The Irish Republican Army", which is at the top of the list in Schedule 2, includes all those organisations?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Only four organisations are specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers. Perhaps I have misunderstood what the noble Lord said and my intervention was badly judged, but those are the only four organisations specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act.
Lord Glentoran: Perhaps I may recap what the noble and learned Lord said. Under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act we have the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA, the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders; we do not have the INLA or the LVF because they have been despecified.
This is where the confusion arises. As I understand it—I shall go back to my script because the matter is quite complicated—the Bill defines a specified

1061
organisation as one which is specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and is, or forms part of, an organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of this Bill. Therefore, as I understand it, the organisations on the list of those specified also have to be proscribed. According to my reckoning, the Real IRA, the INLA and the Provisional IRA are not currently in Schedule 2.
It is a matter of some detail. As we are all a little at sixes and sevens on this—I spent some time trying to sort it out—there is room for confusion.
In order to be specified under this Bill, an organisation has to be both specified under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and proscribed under the Terrorism Bill. As I understand it, Clauses 108 to 111 will be applicable only to an organisation that is specified under the Terrorism Bill. Under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, organisations such as the IRA, UVF and UVA are not specified organisations and therefore would not be specified under this legislation. They would not therefore be subject to the powers available in Clauses 108 to 111. Given their failure to decommission, we feel that this cannot and should not be justified. The effect of both of our amendments would be to tighten significantly the criteria by which an organisation is specified and therefore subject to the powers available in Clauses 108 to 111. They will make specification automatic if any of the four factors in the Northern Ireland Sentences Act are not being satisfied. Those four factors are set out in Section 3(9) of the Act. It states:
"In applying subsection 8(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organization—
(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives;
(b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
(c) is directing or promoting acts of violence by other organisations;
(d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997"—
known as the de Chastelain commission—
"in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883".
These amendments would not remedy the defects in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act but they would avoid repeating them in this Bill. Our Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 would ensure that an organisation was automatically specified under this Bill if it failed to satisfy any one of those four factors.
Amendment No. 171 would ensure the automatic specification of any organisation that failed to fulfil its obligations to decommission its illegal arms and explosives under the decommissioning section of the Belfast Agreement—that is,
"the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
We have discussed which are the specified organisations under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and which are the proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Bill.
1062
As I understand it, the present arrangement in the Bill allows for significant discrepancy and for the possibility of setting up two classes of terrorists—that is, those who are subject to Clauses 108 to 111 of the Terrorism Bill and those who are not subject to those clauses.
I apologise if it sounds rather complicated. I have done my best to explain, but it is a somewhat difficult area. I look forward to the Minister explaining it all very simply. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The Committee should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his co-sponsors of these amendments. Over hundreds of years your Lordships' House has developed a tradition—which I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General supports—of being precise, particularly in matters affecting the law of the United Kingdom. That is why, collectively as a House, we do our best to distil matters, over a period of careful consideration, into language that does not contain ambiguity. If I may say so, I think we succeed in that.
A problem has been indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, which has pertained in Northern Ireland over the past three years or so and which runs a coach and horses through the laws which your Lordships go to so much trouble to make perfect. When a particular point is raised—be it on a security or a judicial matter—there is no calm deliberation such as we have in your Lordships' House. It appears to me, as an outsider, that spin doctors summon a gathering; they meet behind closed doors; they blind each other with endless forms of words; they are starved of sleep, and sometimes of food and drink; and in the end they achieve a form of words which appears to satisfy all present. But when they wake up the next day to what they have agreed, they get as many as four different versions of what they think they have achieved.
As I see it, that will be an on-going problem. I am not seeking to lay an additional burden on the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, but we are on firm ground in suggesting that we should define clearly what we mean. We should ensure that others tampering with the law in another place are not permitted to run amok and make a total mess of what has been achieved at great expense in terms of time and energy.
I support the noble Lord's amendments. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give an assurance that this matter will be looked at again. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, I hope that the whole matter can be tightened up so that there cannot in future be different interpretations of even a single sentence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I welcome the opportunity for a serious, detailed and precise discussion about these provisions, just as there was when they were introduced during special Sittings of Parliament in September 1998 following the terrible atrocity in Omagh. The Government recognise that these are indeed very serious provisions. Those are special provisions that can apply in respect of a certain

1063
number of specified terrorist organisations. We must also recognise the reality that they were introduced, and have been retained, in order to deal with very serious circumstances. We believe that they continue to represent a proportionate response to the serious threat posed by those groups which remain opposed to the peace process and are prepared to use serious violence, such as we witnessed at Omagh, to further their cause.
The intention behind the amendments is that organisations should be included within the scope of these additional powers if they fail to satisfy any of the four factors set out in Section 3(9) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, or if they have not implemented the decommissioning section of the Good Friday agreement. In response I would emphasise that these powers are not a political tool; they are hard-hitting additional powers designed to equip the RUC and the criminal justice agencies with the tools they need to combat those organisations which are violently opposed to the peace process in Northern Ireland.
They are draconian measures. The Government have said that before. We make no excuses for that. But we have a corresponding responsibility to ensure that they are targeted properly at those organisations that are prepared to carry out further atrocities, such as that experienced by the people of Omagh. That is why the Government have restricted the use of the powers against only those organisations that are not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires. That is the test set out in Section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, and that is why the Bill has a direct read-across from that legislation. That requires judgments to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, taking all the necessary factors and information into account—judgments which are kept under review in the light of the latest security information and intelligence. As Members of the Committee will be aware, these judgments have on one occasion been tested in court through the judicial review process and have not been found wanting.
Clause 107 requires—replicating the existing law—that for the special provisions to apply to an organisation it has to be specified under Section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act; that is, it has to be an organisation which is not observing the ceasefire. Presently there are four such specified organisations, the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers. Those are organisations specified under Section 3(8) because they are not complying with the ceasefire. In addition, it has to be an organisation proscribed under Schedule 2 to the Bill. The first on the list of proscribed organisations is the Irish Republican Army. That would include the Real IRA, the Provisional IRA and the Continuity IRA, but only the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA are also specified under Section 3(8) as organisations that are not observing the ceasefire. So it is only to those two organisations—the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA within the rubric of IRA—that the special provisions apply.
1064
It is a complicated explanation, but I believe it to be precise and I believe it to be tight. It is perfectly plain what the provisions are trying to do. They are targeting these additional powers only at those terrorist organisations which are not observing the ceasefire. We believe that to be a sensible approach. We are pushing the law to its limits with these draconian powers; and it is right that where one pushes the law to its limits, it should be properly focused and properly targeted. When these powers were introduced, we described them correctly as appropriate and proportionate. We said that because they were used in a targeted manner against those dissident groups opposed to peace. While these powers unfortunately remain necessary, as we judge them to be, it is vital that they also remain targeted appropriately. They should not be used as political levers. The proper place for the issue of decommissioning to be resolved is not through this legislation but through political negotiation. It was during thorough and painstaking negotiation that recent breakthroughs and progress were made.
The purpose of these provisions is to combat only those organisations which remain opposed to such progress. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I am sure that I am being very stupid—I apologise to the noble and learned Lord—but is he saying that in Schedule 2 on page 63 of the Bill, the first on the list, the Irish Republican Army, does not actually mean the Irish Republican Army but two other organisations which have in the past been associated with it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, I am not saying that. It is my fault for not explaining it adequately and clearly to the Committee. In order for the special post-Omagh rules to apply to a prescribed organisation, the organisation has to satisfy two tests: first, it has to be a specified organisation under Section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. That means that it has to be an organisation which in the judgment of the Secretary of State is not complying with a ceasefire. Under the rubric "IRA", two bodies presently are specified organisations: the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. So the first condition for the special provisions to apply is for the organisation to be a specified organisation under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. Secondly, the organisation must be a proscribed organisation under Schedule 2 to the Bill. Under Schedule 2, the Irish Republican Army will include the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. As the Provisional IRA is not a specified organisation under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, although it is a proscribed organisation under this schedule, it does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 107 of the Bill to make the special provisions apply to it. I am sorry that the explanation is so complicated, but that is how we get there.
Lord Swinfen: What will happen if an organisation currently on ceasefire withdraws from the ceasefire?

1065
What will happen if a completely new organisation is formed which announces that it will not be on ceasefire?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As far as concerns organisations which are presently on ceasefire but then cease to be on ceasefire, it will then be a matter for the Secretary of State, under Section 3(8), to determine whether it is a specified organisation in those circumstances; that is, one which is not complying with the ceasefire. If it becomes a specified organisation and is also proscribed under Schedule 2, the special provisions will apply to it. As to new organisations, I shall have to check to see what is the order-making power under the Bill. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in relation to that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before we started the debate I thought I understood which organisations were in which category. I am now beginning to wonder. I apologise for pressing the noble and learned Lord further, but in response to my noble friend Lord Marlesford he explained that the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA were part of the Irish Republican Army as listed in Schedule 2 and therefore were covered because they were also covered by the other provision. So the Provisional IRA and, for that matter, any parts of the Irish Republican Army other than the two I have mentioned, remain proscribed organisations. It is illegal to belong to them or to wear their uniform. There are also other matters covered earlier in the Bill. On the other hand, however, the powers in this part of the Bill do not apply to them.
Perhaps I may put the following point to the Minister. Let us suppose that the authorities of the Irish Republican Army disown at some point the Real IRA and/or the Continuity IRA—after all, some people closely connected with the IRA as a whole have already criticised the Omagh and Hammersmith Bridge bombs. If the authorities of the Irish Republican Army were to do that, that would mean that the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA were no longer part of the IRA. We do not control who is part of the IRA; the IRA does. If the authorities of the Irish Republican Army threw them out, they would no longer be proscribed and for that matter no longer be covered by the provisions in this part of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With great respect to the noble Lord, that is completely the wrong way in which to regard Schedule 2. That schedule contains the phrase, "The Irish Republican Army". The question here is: what does that rubric cover? It covers the Real IRA, the Provisional IRA and the Continuity IRA. It does not depend on the precise relationship between those three groups; the issue is whether they are part of an organisation that properly falls within the rubric of the Irish Republican Army. The answer is that they would be, irrespective of what the relationship has been. This is a mechanism. It does not, as it were, depend on the precise relationship between the various groups.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his patient explanation. I still feel that there is room for a degree of clarification and tidying up of the drafting here. After the earlier part of our debate on Schedule 2, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and I have received a response. I understand from that reply that Schedule 2 is to be amended and changed by an order to be brought in by the Government at a point soon after the Bill becomes an Act. For the purpose of today's debate, I should like to think over the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
Clause 107 agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sierra Leone
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"When I made the first Statement to the House, I announced that the British military presence would be of value in securing two objectives: to get British nationals out and to get more UN forces in. I am pleased to report to the House that we have made good progress on both objectives.
"The UN force has expanded rapidly over the past month and by next week we expect it to be at its original authorised strength of 11,000. This successful build-up has been possible only because of the increased efficiency which the British presence has brought to logistical movements. We have provided security for the airport and provided a lead which has encouraged the UNAMSIL contributors to deploy quickly.
"The security situation has much improved, in part because of the UK presence. The rebel advance on Freetown has been reversed and their leader is under arrest. All the 500 UN personnel who had been seized by the rebels have been released but we continue to watch with care the situation of Major Harrison and Mr Smith.
"We remain on course for our target of withdrawal by mid-June. The first battalion of the Parachute Regiment has already withdrawn and we expect Four Two Commando to be withdrawn next week. At that point, security of Lungi airport will be transferred to the UN. At the weekend I spoke to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN, who

1067
expressed his appreciation for what he described as the magnificent effort by the British troops in helping to stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone.
"Much more remains to be done to ensure that the UN mission is not only at full strength but also an effective force. We will continue to provide valuable back-up to the UN operation, including better communications to its units and military advice to its headquarters.
"The achievement of the past month has been to avert an immediate threat to Freetown. Sierra Leone, as a result, may have dropped out of the front pages, but we will secure lasting stability in Sierra Leone only if we, the international community, and the government of Sierra Leone follow through the gains of the past month with a sustained effort. We must also expect some local reversals before we succeed in bringing the conflict to an end. On Thursday I will be visiting Sierra Leone to explore with President Kabbah how we take forward our work in partnership. Today I wish to outline to the House our strategy for building on the progress of the past month. The strategy has three priorities: repel the rebels; restore the peace process; and rebuild Sierra Leone.
"The first priority is to equip the government of Sierra Leone with an effective and accountable army of its own. Since the Lomé agreement of last year, Britain has been the lead nation in training a new Sierra Leone army. We propose to accelerate OUT training in order to achieve a rapid boost in troop capacity. We will therefore be providing a short-term training team to provide an intensive infantry course for a thousand new recruits, all of them screened recruits over 18 years old. This training will be conducted by around 180 personnel drawn from 2 Royal Anglian. They will be supported by HMS "Argyll", RFA "Sir Percivale", which will provide communications and back-up offshore. In addition, 40 junior officers of the Sierra Leone army have this week commenced training in Ghana with the British military and advisory team there.
"We anticipate that the intensive phase of initial training will be completed over the next two months. In the longer term, we will retain the lead in military training of the Sierra Leone army and in advising the government of Sierra Leone on structures for the democratic accountability of their army. We will be deploying shortly the lead elements of a long-term training team of around 90 personnel, but their full deployment will depend on establishing a secure environment.
"The second priority is to restore momentum to the peace process. Before the recent return to conflict, over one-third of the armed groups had entered the disarmament process started by the Lomé agreement. It is vital that the option of demilitarisation remains open to all those willing to lay down their arms.
"The United Kingdom is by far the largest donor to the peace process in Sierra Leone and we have committed some £70 million from the development
1068
budget. We will be seeking further support of other donors, including the World Bank, to help to match the resources required by the shattered economy and society of Sierra Leone.
"The amnesty within the Lomé agreement applied only to crimes committed before the date of its signature. It does not provide immunity For crimes committed in the recent conflict. The rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, is now under detention and must remain so until he is brought to justice.
"The third priority is to reduce the incentive which the illicit trade in diamonds has provided for armed conflict in Sierra Leone. Diamonds have fuelled this war. The people of Sierra Leone remain among the world's poorest while the wealth of its diamonds goes to rebels. In the medium term, the objective must be to bring the diamond area under the control of the government and of the UN. In the mean time, we must take action outside Sierra Leone to regulate the trade in its diamonds We are exploring with partners in the Security Council our proposal for a UN resolution banning the trade in diamonds from Sierra Leone except where they are certified as legitimate by the government of Sierra Leone.
"Any action to halt the flow of diamonds out of Sierra Leone and the flow of illicit weapons into Sierra Leone would have a much better prospect of success with the co-operation of neighbouring countries, especially Liberia. I regret to inform the House that there is significant evidence establishing close links between the rebels in Sierra Leone and supporters in Liberia, and that Liberians are profiting from illegal diamond smuggling. We are consulting with the United States and the European Commission on how we can jointly step up international pressure on Liberia to close down its links to the rebels.
"The position in Sierra Leone has greatly improved in the month since my first Statement to the House. British troops have made a big contribution to this turnaround. The whole House will want to record its appreciation of the professionalism with which they have carried out their duties and the commitment with which they have served in challenging circumstances.
"But there remains a long way yet to go before Sierra Leone is free from conflict. The best way we can express our appreciation for the efforts of our troops is to make sure that we build on the gains that their presence has secured. We are determined to do so and we will continue to make every realistic contribution open to Britain. Our objective is to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of stability and peace and are freed from the violence of a brutal rebel minority".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this very full Statement by the Secretary of State on the situation in

1069
Sierra Leone. I completely support and endorse everything that has been said about the expertise and excellence of our troops and their skill in performing sensitive and complex tasks. I know that we expect nothing less of them, but it is always warming to see it in action. They will recognise that Members on all sides of the House feel very proud.
The Statement is meant to be about strategy. I confess that some of us find it no easier now to understand what is the long-term strategy towards poor Sierra Leone and all its agonies than we did previously. Is the aim to remain in Sierra Leone? What is the nature of the commitment referred to by the Secretary of State, or of his partnership with President Kabbah, as mentioned in the Statement? Is the main priority now the training of the Sierra Leone army, such as it is? Or is the main priority to stiffen the UN, which was the original idea? Which of those two will do the fighting that is continuing?
If the aim has now shifted slightly towards helping the SLA, that is quite a mouthful. The SLA is a chaotic organisation. It has rebel troops fighting alongside it as well as rebel troops shooting at it. The RUF is advancing, not retreating—it has just "nabbed" two more towns—and, of course, it is still in control of the diamond fields. So we need to know a little more about how that situation will be handled.
A stronger UN presence is obviously welcome. But are we now moving into a major long-term UN commitment? If so, where has the questioning been done—I hope, at the UN in New York—about where the forces and reinforcements in the longer term will come from to back up this operation? You cannot enter into such commitments without readiness to back them up with reinforcements if they go wrong, or if they become prolonged, which they invariably do. We need to know more about the part that we are playing in seeing that the UN gears itself up for what could be a massive and prolonged commitment in this part of Africa, aside from its other commitments all over the continent.
As to the question of "conflict" diamonds and the attempt to control them, we certainly wish that attempt well. I hope that it can be done. There is recognition that it is an immensely complex market. There is difficulty enough in tracking uncut diamonds, even with finger tracing and so on, but tracking cut diamonds is almost impossible. Although we are aiming for some UN resolution, I am not clear how in practice we distinguish between diamonds that are approved officially and which generate revenue for Sierra Leone or other states, and diamonds that are "unofficial". It will be a fiendishly difficult task. Then there is the problem of bringing Liberia into line, which was commented on in the Statement.
We must ask whether this commitment means more arms supply, and what sort of arms? How are we to ensure that they do not end up in teenage hands? It is fine saying that trainees should not be under 18, but
1070
how can we guarantee that? How can we avoid hair-raising stories of the kind filed by the Evening Standard journalist, Alex Renton, in his brilliant dispatches about young children being trained to kill?
Finally—I am sure that the noble Baroness expects this point to be made—in order to understand what will happen next and in the future, we need to understand a great deal more about what has occurred in the past. There is still a good deal of mystery about the Lomé agreement and how on earth anyone ever came to do a deal with Sankoh and to put in place a butcher—which he is—as vice-president of a republic. Who backed that deal, and why did it happen? If we cannot answer those questions today, we shall have to return to them. Unless we understand what went wrong and ensure that it is not repeated, we shall not avoid other fatal mistakes in future of the kind that have led to so many deaths and so much tragedy and mutilation.
We welcome what the troops are doing. We welcome the effort to bring the diamond situation under control, which will be difficult. However, we still want to press the Government further on the question of our long-term commitment, and on what our partnership really is, in this benighted country and on how we can ensure that our undertakings and fine words are turned into action.
4.35 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I should like to express our great appreciation for what might be described as a classic operation by an outstanding group of British troops. Anyone realising the speed with which the situation has been stabilised and the change in confidence on the part of the Sierra Leone Government must be extraordinarily impressed.
On these Benches, we do not find the Government's motivation quite so difficult to understand. In a situation where, clearly, far too much of Africa is slipping towards anarchy, largely because of the commercial exploitation of oil, diamonds and other natural resources, it is essential that the rule of law is restored and maintained. We believe strongly that the United Nations must be an instrument in that, and that the Government are right in attempting to back the UN in this situation.
We are pleased to hear the decision that the training of the Sierra Leone army will be done by the Royal Anglian Regiment. Will training also be undertaken by other Commonwealth countries? Are we right in assuming that in the take-over in part from the British troops—many of whom will now be leaving Sierra Leone—there has been an impressive strengthening of the Government's position as a result of Indian troops coming to the scene, who are equally well trained and battle hardened? It is worth saying that this is also classic Commonwealth operation. It indicates how important the Commonwealth continues to be, right up to the present day.

1071
Can the Minister tell the House anything about the position of the Ghanaian troops at Lunsar, which I understand to be the crucial town between the diamond areas and Freetown. Have they fought their way out of what appeared to be a difficult position? Will the Minister confirm that the RUF is retreating, not advancing, and that at Rogberi Junction it fled into the bush after confronting UN troops?
On the issue of arms, what steps have been taken to ensure that further arms do not fall into the hands of the rebels? Can any extra action be taken in terms of certification, safeguarding of the arsenals and so on?
The Minister implied a worrying rise in the official export from Liberia of diamonds and diamond pieces. I understand that it rose by 30 million dollars last year. As Liberia is not a major diamondiferous area, that suggests that a good many diamonds are being smuggled out through that area. I underline the Minister's remark about the importance of the United States in this area, given its close ties to Liberia, and the possibility that it can bring pressure to bear on Mr Taylor, whose role in this whole affair is far from attractive.
An extremely welcome report in today's Financial Times suggests that the UK is taking the initiative in suggesting an international diamond regime that would enable all diamonds to specify their origin and that would require the major diamond companies to agree not to use diamonds that did not indicate their origin. As that has already been dealt with in Angola and is now being dealt with in Sierra Leone, could it also be extended to cover the Democratic Republic of Congo, where I understand there is a major outbreak of fighting over Kisangani, which is also within the diamond-hearing areas?
Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm that perhaps one of the few ways in which we can bring some sort of established peace to this very rich area of west Africa is by making sure that those who exploit the deep suffering and sacrifice of other people will be prevented from making money out of it, whether the source of that money is diamonds or oil?
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their welcome comments about the sterling efforts of our troops. It is heart-warming to hear praise for those efforts echoed from all sides of the House.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised a number of points, and I should like to deal with them in the order in which they arose.
The noble Lord asked about training. It is quite clear that training is a hugely important issue if we want to see within Sierra Leone a democratic and accountable army. There are efforts in relation to keeping a sizeable force—in the Statement I mentioned 180 personnel—to that end. There has been a deal of concern about the way in which the Sierra Leone army has operated in the past. We are very concerned about the reports that British weapons may
1072
have been in the hands of children, as the noble Lord mentioned. We have instructed the Commissioner in Sierra Leone to remind President Kabbah of the assurance he gave in March 1999 that those weapons would be used only by regular SLA soldiers in accordance with international law and responsible human rights standards. We expect those assurances to be kept.
This is just one of the reasons why the UK-led military advisory training team announced by the Prime Minister on 27th March is needed in Sierra Leone: to create the responsible and accountable Sierra Leone Army that we would all like. A condition of the establishment of the MAT is that children shall not be used by the Sierra Leone armed forces or the civil defence force. The release programme announced on 23rd May will be carefully supervised by British military personnel on the ground to ensure that any British weapons go only to adult soldiers and to the Sierra Leone army for training or for legitimate operational requirements. Only by training and making sure that the army has the proper ability to respond appropriately and effectively shall we be able to bring about the long-term change that we all know is absolutely crucial in the area.
We hope that by the time our troops withdraw there will be up to 13,500 UN troops on the ground. The UN has taken very seriously the need to increase those troops. Noble Lords will remember that the Secretary-General mentioned that he would like to see the troop numbers increased to 16,500. That matter is being addressed. Minds are being very clearly focused on the long-term needs.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned diamonds. The Statement also elucidated that this is an incredibly important issue. Diamonds have been the fuel. As the noble Lord said, it is a very difficult task. Her Majesty's Government have been determined that the issue should be addressed. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the Congo. Obviously, we shall take that very seriously too, because the issue of oil and diamonds is of wider application than just to Sierra Leone.
Britain wants to see international action to curb the illicit trade in diamonds now. The proposed new United Nations Security Council resolution on Sierra Leone provides a golden opportunity to focus the international mind on addressing the problem and exploring measures to tackle it. Britain is proposing ideas to prevent the RUF having access to Sierra Leone diamonds and the diamond market, and to help the development of a regulated and sustainable diamond industry in Sierra Leone. We believe that if our ideas are accepted and implemented they will go a long way to eliminating the reason for the conflict and encouraging a secure and stable peace in Sierra Leone. It is difficult, but we have set our hand clearly to achieve that, and we are hopeful that we shall receive support.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of training. The Commonwealth countries are participating very creatively in this. It warms our hearts that that is so,

1073
and that we are seeing this united approach. We shall continue to consult them and work with them, and we very much value their contribution, as we value the contribution made by the Ghanaian troops. I cannot give the noble Baroness specific details about their position, but I can say that she is right in saying that the RUF is retreating in many areas and that the UN efforts appear to be going very well.
I come to the Lomé agreement, which I remind noble Lords was voluntarily entered into by all the participating parties. Noble Lords will remember that Britain at that stage was an observer, not a participant. We have to be very careful not to be presumptuous in our approach to what is best for others. The people around that table included not merely Foday Sankoh, but many other rebels, who have held to their side of the bargain. They decided that it was the best way forward for Sierra Leone. At the time the agreement was warmly and wholeheartedly welcomed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it can be a very dangerous instrument to employ.
We have to look to the people in Sierra Leone to make decisions on the future. We shall rely on them, as we relied on them before, to determine what is best for themselves—obviously with our assistance and with the support of all other international contributors who wish them well.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating the Statement. In it she referred to the fact that the United Nations would be assuming responsibility for the security of the airfield at Freetown. That airfield, of course, could be of immense importance to any further moves that Her Majesty's Government might need to make either to increase the troops who remain or to extract them. What confidence can the Minister give the House that the United Nations will be capable of securing that airfield in the event that the RUF should mount attacks against it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we know that our troops have been very successful in securing the airport. We have been involved very closely with those who will take over to develop a strategy for managing this matter. We are informed that there is every confidence that the UN troops who will replace our troops will have the ability and capacity to hold that airport securely for the benefit of others.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, first, may I remind the noble Baroness the Minister that the middle of June is Thursday week? Am I right in understanding that she tells us that the Foreign Secretary has undertaken that all British troops, except the 180 left for training purposes, will leave Sierra Leone by Thursday week? Secondly, how long will those 180 troops remain in Sierra Leone? Thirdly, what arms and other equipment have been guaranteed or offered to the government there by the British Government?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, our expectation is that the combat troops of whom I have already spoken will be withdrawn by next week. I cannot give the specific date. We are on target in relation to that.
As regards the training, there is no specific limit on how long the 180 will be there, but the noble Lord will know that our commitment to training the Sierra Leone army is not a short-term one; it is a long-term commitment that we had before this conflict arose, and we shall continue to pursue it. It is hoped that the 180 troops—it may be a slightly higher figure—will be able to train over 1,000 recruits of Sierra Leone origin. I am sure the noble Lord agrees it is most important that Sierra Leone is able to look after herself in the long term without being dependent on international forces to assist her in this regard. Therefore, the provision of training, not simply the 180 troops, is a long-term commitment.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, now that Mr Sankoh has been in custody for some time, can my noble friend inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government are confident that they can identify the individuals who are effectively in control of the rebel forces at this time? Have any attempts been made to contact those individuals and, if so, what success has been achieved?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am unable to give your Lordships specific information. Those details are not fully available to me, although they may be available to others under more secure circumstances. We know that strenuous efforts are being made to identify and contact those responsible for the rebels in order to bring them under control. We are aware that the intelligence-gathering process is very efficient and thorough.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, do the Government anticipate further demands on British troops in the rest of Africa, or the world, either for this or any other kind of operation? First, are Her Majesty's Government confident that they have enough troops to satisfy any potential demand without any degree of overstretch, which is a matter that worries a number of noble Lords at the moment? Secondly, can the Minister inform the House whether the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has any jurisdiction in west Africa? If not, would that be desirable; or is the standard that applies to the Balkans different from that which applies to west Africa?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I deal with the last point first. The War Crimes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to Africa, and it is absolutely plain that exactly the same rules apply to Africa as to anywhere else. As to the noble Viscount's first question, I wish that I had a crystal ball. When I took over my post in July I thought that the problems of the world were in good part solved; they are not. We never know when or what conflicts will arise. However, to date we have had sufficient forces for all

1075
of the unfortunate incidents with which we have had to deal. Obviously, we shall continue to review the position and ensure that that happy position continues.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that since the Statement was drafted the 21 Indian peacekeepers, who were surrounded by the RUF in the eastern town of Kuiva, have been taken into custody by the RUF and moved to Pendembu? Is the noble Baroness able to inform the House what has happened to the other 220 Indian peacekeepers who are blockaded in the Kailahun district? Is the noble Baroness able to explain the strategy of the United Nations to prevent the RUF from exploiting its hold over the peacekeepers as a means of deterring the Sierra Leone Government from pursuing their offensive against the rebels in the east?
Does the noble Baroness agree that the original coup against President Kabbah by the military government, which lasted for several months, was motivated by rivalry between the regular armed forces and the Kamajors, an ethnic Mende militia, which has now been resurrected in the guise of the Civil Defence Force? Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is extremely dangerous that Sierra Leone should have two, if not three, separate armed forces, only one of which is completely under the control of the civil administration? Is one component of the Government's long-term strategy to beef up and regenerate the armed forces of Sierra Leone an attempt to ensure that the Civil Defence Force is disbanded and demobilised and that the soldiers who belong to that militia are re-integrated into the regular armed forces of the government?
As to the demilitarisation of the RUF, has any further attempt been made to establish contact with its commanders in Kailahun and Makeni? Are we entirely dependent on the good offices of President Charles Taylor in this regard'? As to the illicit diamond trade, can one suggest that the services of Ambassador Fowler, who has done such a brilliant job in Angola, should be deployed by the United Nations in an attempt to stop up the flow of illicit diamonds as the Government's strategy demands? In that regard, can the noble Baroness say whether investigations are being made into the article in the Observer last Sunday in which it was claimed that diamonds purporting to come from the war zone in Sierra Leone had been offered to dealers in Hatton Garden who made no bones about accepting them? Does the Minister agree that steps should be taken to prevent the acceptance by diamond dealers within our own country of these illicitly mined gems?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I deal with the last point first. The illicit sale of diamonds is a matter of acute importance which we are addressing with vigour in the way I described earlier. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord. If dealers in Hatton Garden behave in such an unscrupulous way, that is a matter of great concern and we can do nothing but deplore it. The UN informs us that it has lost
1076
communication with the 21 peacekeepers. We are unable to provide direct information about their whereabouts or wellbeing, but that is a matter of concern which will continue to be considered. The noble Lord is also right to point out the proper concern about the rivalry within the Civil Defence Force.
I reiterate Her Majesty's Government's clear view that for Sierra Leone to have one identifiable army must inure to the long term benefit of that country. That is the best way to enhance the security and stability of that country and its borders without having to rely on outside assistance. In relation to all those matters I agree with the noble Lord. I am unable to provide a specific answer about contact with Charles Taylor, and perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in respect of that matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister able to provide a little more information, without hazarding security, about how it is proposed to deal with the seat of all this trouble: the diamond fields? I heard what the noble Baroness said but I did not understand exactly, or in broad strategic terms, what was to be done. Is it not apparent that there must be strict military control and containment of the diamond fields? Is it right that the United Nations has agreed to take total control of that operation? If so, what part, if any, will our troops play in it? To leave aside the diplomatic efforts with Liberia for one moment, how is this military containment to be effective? If it is not, the trouble will continue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the hope and expectation are that the Sierra Leone army, together with the UN troops, will be in a position to retake the whole of that territory. Noble Lords will know that the RUF is currently in control of a number of the diamond-producing areas in Sierra Leone. So the strategy would be for the UN, together with the Sierra Leone army, to retake that area and make it secure. Then, having made it secure, the strategy would be to bring it back under the democratic rule of the properly elected government and subject to the normal rule of law.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, could the noble Baroness endeavour to answer the last question posed by my noble friend Lord Tebbit about the supply of British arms to the Sierra Leone army? Could she also say what arrangements have been made, after training the troops, as we are doing, to arm them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the arms that are currently being made available by Britain will be under the control of British military personnel. They will be responsible for the distribution and the identification of who has them and on what conditions. Your Lordships will know that we face a very fluid situation. I cannot give you the exact quantum of those arms. But they are being very carefully negotiated and will be kept under proper control by authorities who will make sure that they are

1077
distributed only to those who will use them to good purpose; namely, in the democratic support of the Sierra Leone government and of the UN initiative.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to say that the troops who have made such an enormous difference and who have started the whole improvement are to be withdrawn next week. Surely this is perhaps a little unwise. Can the noble Baroness say what better job they could be doing than the one they have done there?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they have done an absolutely superb job and we are immensely proud of them. However, the job that they have done is now complete. We said that they would go in to help to secure the airport so that those who wished to leave could do so. We also said that they would be there to help and support the UN troops so that the UN could get the proper numbers on the ground to carry out its duties. They have done those things. By the time they leave we hope that there will be at least 13,500 UN troops on the ground.
We also reasonably expect that those UN troops will be able to keep the airport safe and secure to enable further UN troops and other supplies to come in as necessary. Although I join wholeheartedly in praise of our troops, I would not like anything we have said here today to be seen as deprecating the commitment that has been made by the 13,500 UN troops who have been drawn from all over the world and who have come together to support the UN initiative to bring security and safety back to the people of Sierra Leone. They too are worthy of our plaudits and our congratulations: they too are worthy of our support.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, however much we may congratulate them and applaud them, how can we, following up what the noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has said, frankly have confidence that the UN troops will be able to hold the airport when they have not even been able to protect themselves? They have ended up being captured, and apparently the Indians too have been captured—and, as the noble Baroness has said, they are probably among the best in Sierra Leone.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have done much since the British troops arrived. One of the most important contributions we have been able to make is in relation to building and creating an effective strategy to assist the UN troops in their deployment and in taking the initiative forward. The training and technical assistance that we are making available are given not only to those on the ground in Sierra Leone, but technical assistance is being given by our British experts on military affairs in the UN in New York also. We shall continue to be closely involved in the strategy that has been so effectively deployed by our troops.
I do not say that there are not challenges ahead; clearly there are. However, we must not undermine what has been achieved in conjunction with those same
1078
UN troops within a very short compass. The British input has been very effective and it has been effective because it has been accepted willingly by those with whom we have worked.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, an international position in regard to diamonds is long overdue and ought to be encouraged. More specifically, following on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, what provision is being made to protect our forces who are training the Sierra Leone army? What medical facilities and provision have been made for our forces, given that I understand a large number of malaria cases have now been reported?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the troops who are being left behind will include those who will in effect protect the trainers and so it is likely that there will be 80 or 90 people specifically doing the training. Other troops will be there also to protect those who are involved in the training. That is the first point.
On the second point in relation to malaria, I can confirm that there have been a small number of reported cases of malaria among the British forces deployed in Sierra Leone during the current operation. We are at present seeking to establish the circumstances in which the personnel concerned have contracted this disease, but we know that all the personnel who have been infected are responding well to treatment. The malaria outbreak is small, it is contained and it is being effectively dealt with.

Terrorism Bill
5.6 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 108 [Evidence]:
On Question, Whether Clause 108 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Goodhart: This clause replaces a section to a similar effect which was enacted in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. That Act was passed after a two-day debate in your Lordships' House at the beginning of September 1998 in the aftermath of the Omagh atrocity, obviously as emergency legislation. That special section has so far never been relied on in a court in the United Kingdom; and I have to say I believe that this Bill, as its successor, probably never will be, even if it is enacted. This clause, or rather its predecessor, was subjected to a devastating analysis in September 1998 during the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who I am glad to see in his place. I hope that he will repeat that analysis.
Therefore I shall try to be brief in speaking about this. On these Benches we believe that this clause is both improper as a matter of law and useless in practice. It is improper because it is surely for the court to decide whether an accused belongs to a proscribed organisation on the basis of the evidence before it.

1079
The opinion of a police superintendent, or a higher police officer, is not evidence of the accused's membership, even if you call it so.
What is happening is not that the police superintendent is giving evidence but that we are transferring part of the court's power of decision-making—the power to decide whether the accused is a member of a proscribed organisation—from the court to a police officer. Of course it is not a transfer of the whole of that power of decision but it does transfer an important element of it. The opinion of a police officer may, and no doubt will, be based on the evidence as presented to him.
But that opinion is not itself evidence; and whether the evidence justifies the opinion is a matter for the court and not for the police officer.
Under this clause, the police officer's opinion would still be treated as evidence, and possibly a crucial piece of evidence, even if that opinion were based on a belief in the probability rather than the certainty of its truth. The opinion could, and perhaps in a number of cases would, be based on an inadmissible confession. Unquestionably, as a matter of legal procedure, it is plainly inappropriate. It would no doubt be regarded as inappropriate in Strasbourg; and, unquestionably, it would be regarded—quite apart from the European Convention on Human Rights—as a breach of the fundamental tradition of the British legal systems.
Furthermore, it is not only improper, it is useless. Let us consider what will happen at the trial. The first questions which counsel for the accused will ask the police officer is, "What is the evidence you base your opinion on?" If the police officer says, "I'm sorry, I cannot tell you because of risk to our intelligence sources", almost inevitably the court, the judge having been trained in the judicial traditions of this country, will disregard the evidence as being unreliable and untrustworthy. In the unlikely event of the police officer saying what the grounds of his opinion are, counsel for the accused is entitled to say, "We want to hear the primary evidence from people who can give it, not evidence second hand from you, the police officer".
The clause was introduced in haste and should be repented of at leisure. It should never have been included in the 1998 Act; and it surely should be removed from the statute book now. I believe that Clause 108 should not stand part.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I support the noble Lord. I can be brief because he has covered most, if not all, the arguments and I am in the process of losing my voice.
When the criminal justice Bill was before the House in September 1998, I was opposed to Clauses 1 and 2, which are reproduced in Clauses 108 and 109 of the Bill currently before the Committee, on the ground that they would achieve nothing in practice. However, I voted in favour of the Bill because in the aftermath of the bombing at Omagh it seemed to me that something was needed then, even if it were only a gesture. The
1080
time for gestures has now passed. There has been time to think again about Clauses 108 and 109. I had hoped that Clause 108 would have quietly disappeared never to be heard of again.
I shall not repeat the arguments which I sought to advance on the last occasion. They came to this: that no judge in Northern Ireland—I am lucky enough to know most, if not all, of them—would take account of the opinion of a police office, however senior, as to whether an accused was a member of a specified organisation unless he could back up that opinion with some evidence. Without evidence it is mere opinion, and mere opinion is worthless in a court of law except when it is given on expert grounds; and on this a police officer is not an expert.
The only evidence which a police officer could use to back up his opinion of the membership of an accused of a specified organisation would almost certainly be the evidence of an informer or other evidence from some secret source which could not be given in court. Therefore there could be no effective, meaningful cross-examination of the police officer on the opinion he had expressed.
If, perchance, a judge were to take account of an opinion of a police officer in these circumstances in convicting a defendant—let us bear in mind that the provisions apply to the conviction of a defendant as well as the committal of an accused for trial—such a conviction would almost certainly be upset on appeal because it would have been in part based on evidence which had not been given in open court and therefore would be contrary to any number of provisions of the Human Rights Act.
To make the opinion admissible in court is, I have to suggest to the Committee, a complete waste of breath. Earlier today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, described these two provisions as being hard hitting, additional powers. If by that description he refers to Clause 108, I can only disagree, sadly, with him. It hits, and will hit, nothing.
I am not surprised that Clause 108 has apparently not been used in a criminal court since it was enacted. In this Chamber one is not allowed even to think, "I told you so". I shall not say that but only that I am not in the least surprised it has not been used.
Lord Glentoran: I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is not in his place. From this side of the Chamber, I rise to support the Government. Although we have an immense respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, to say nothing of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it would be inconsistent for me to attempt to persuade the Government to remoke these paragraphs in this part of the Bill which is clearly for Northern Ireland emergency situations.
Clause 108(3)(b) gives considerable protection. It states clearly that,
"the accused shall not be committed for trial, be found to have a case to answer or he convicted solely on the basis of the statement"—
that is, the statement from the police officer. Those of us who work and live in Northern Ireland know only too well how unbelievably difficult it can be to get any

1081
evidence in time before a court. In that situation, and with the use of this part of the Bill that the Minister made clear, we support the Government.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government have never disguised the fact that these are serious provisions. As we acknowledged at the time they were introduced, they take the law to its very limits. Nevertheless, the Government believed then, and continue to believe now, that the provisions were an appropriate and proportionate response to the serious threat posed by active dissident groups opposed to the peace process.
That threat was demonstrated at its most deadly by the appalling events in Omagh on 15th August 1998. Despite all the existing legislation and the information and intelligence available to the security forces, it was not possible to prevent the bomb that detonated in the heart of Omagh on a busy Saturday afternoon, killing 29 innocent men, women and children. That atrocity reminded us all that there were extreme elements which were determined at all costs to frustrate the will of the people expressed in their support for the Good Friday agreement. It was vital that the governments took action, North and South.
Unfortunately, that threat has not gone away. Dissident groups remain violently opposed to peace. There have been a number of attacks in recent months in Northern Ireland and, although it is still too early to be definitive, last week's bomb attack at Hammersmith Bridge may also underline that the threat is still very real.
However, the Government also recognise the need to comply fully with our human rights obligations and with the natural requirements of fairness and justice. Our guiding principle is that where powers are introduced which go beyond the normal criminal law, as these undoubtedly do, appropriate safeguards must be built in to ensure that they are not used inappropriately.
I can assure the Committee that the judgments which were made in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights were made only after the fullest consideration, otherwise my noble friend Lord Bassam would not have made the declaration he did under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. In that respect, it is important to note the safeguards which are in place in this clause.
First, Clause 108 requires that a police statement must be given by a senior officer of at least the rank of superintendent, and must be given orally, with the opportunity for cross-examination by either party or by the judge. That cross-examination can examine the basis on which the police officer makes his statement.
Secondly, subsection (3)(b) provides that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a police officer's statement. It must be corroborated by other evidence.
Thirdly, the clause provides only for the evidence of the admissible. It will be for the courts to determine what weight, if any, to give to such evidence and that
1082
will depend on the circumstances in particular cases. That is an important safeguard, as I hope that noble Lords will recognise.
Finally, as was discussed in relation to the earlier amendment, this provision is targeted very specifically at only a small number of organisations in Northern Ireland which remain wedded to violence. Currently, there are only four specified organisations to which Clauses 108 to 111 apply: the Real IRA, the Continuity IRA, the Orange Volunteers and the Red Hand Defenders.
I also remind Members of the Committee that these provisions are kept under review with regard to their continuing requirement. They can at any point be "switched off" by order. That review process will take account of the approach of the government of the Republic of Ireland to their equivalent provisions since cross-border co-operation has been an important factor in their history.
Like many noble Lords, I look forward to the day when stringent, indeed draconian, measures such as these can be removed from the UK statute book. I sincerely hope that that day is not far off. But I believe that it would be premature to dispose of an integral piece of our armoury at this stage. I commend Clause 108 to the Committee.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for his speech. He repeated the arguments which he persuasively addressed to the House in September 1998.
I am afraid that I am unable to accept that there are adequate safeguards in the Bill. First, the fact that the opinion must be that of a middle-ranking police officer—a superintendent—rather than someone more junior is not a form of safeguard. The safeguard in subsection (3)(b), that no one can be found to have a case to answer solely on the basis of the statement, is of little value, and it seems that there is a dilemma. If there is evidence to justify conviction without taking into account the opinion of the police officer, why give evidence of the police officer's opinion at all? If, on the other hand, the police officer's opinion is an essential piece of the jigsaw leading potentially to conviction, we shall run up against the problem pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd; namely, that no judge brought up in the traditions of the courts of Northern Ireland, which in this respect are plainly the same as those of Scotland, England and Wales, will accept that evidence as the basis for conviction. I talk about the "judge" because it is almost inevitable that such trials will be held under the Diplock procedure.
The fact is that any society which regards itself as governed by the rule of law, as we certainly do, must apply the rule of law even when it is inconvenient and frustrating for it to do so. And here I do not use the expression "human rights"; I use the expression "rule of law", which is a different and older tradition. It certainly goes back many centuries in this country. I do not believe that Clause 108 satisfies the tests of the rule of law.

1083
It is not my intention today to seek to divide the Committee on Clause 108, but we may well return to the issue on Report. I withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 108 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clauses 109 to 115 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Exercise of Officers' Powers]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 172:
Page 139, line 19, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 172 refers to page 6, paragraph 32, of the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which draws attention to the fact that Schedule 14 permits information obtained by authorised officers to be passed on to listed person or,
"to a person specified by order of the Secretary of State for use of a kind specified in the order".
This is a probing amendment, but the Committee seeks an explanation of why these powers should be drawn in such wide terms. Our amendment seeks to restrict the width of those powers. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can well understand the thinking behind the amendment. Indeed, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in its report encouraged your Lordships' House to probe the need for such a wide provision allowing the Secretary of State to add by order to those to whom information acquired by examining or authorised officers might be made available and for what purpose. I hope that today I shall be able to allay any underlying concerns.
First, this type of provision is not novel. Indeed, a similar provision is to be found in Sections 21 and 22 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to the supply of information acquired by immigration officers. I am sure that the noble Viscount is aware of that because I recall that his noble friend Lord Cope moved a similar amendment to that Bill when it was before your Lordships' House.
In the case of the Terrorism Bill, the provision concerns information acquired by an examining officer or an authorised officer. The point of the provision in both cases is, of course, to provide flexibility for the future, but with safeguards.
At the moment, the key frontier control agencies with which the police, as examining officers, work, and with which it makes good operational sense to exchange information, are Customs and Excise and the Immigration Service. Closer co-operation and working relationships between them are developing at all times. In addition, the police work closely with their colleagues in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. All those organisations are named on the face of the Bill.
However, I believe that one can say fairly that in framing new anti-terrorist legislation we have tried as far as possible to be "future proof". We have added the new provision concerning the seizure of cash at borders by authorised officers. With that in mind, it seems prudent to us to provide the Secretary of State
1084
with a reserve power so that he can add extra agencies to the list if developments suggest that that might be operationally beneficial.
At the moment we do not plan to use the power. If we had other organisations in mind, of course we would name them on the face of the Bill. However, times change and links with other agencies may develop or relevant responsibilities may change. It could be to the general benefit of all concerned that the supply of information to other agencies is sanctioned.
The Bill proposes that the addition of a further agency to the list of those to whom information may be supplied should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We consider that to be the appropriate level of scrutiny in these circumstances. It is an important power which concerns the passing of information to third parties and it is right that this level of safeguard is provided.
I hope that that explanation is clear and that the noble Viscount will not seek to press his amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, which we shall study carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Consent to prosecution]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 173:
Page 54, line 36, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (4)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 173, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 176, both of which stand in the names of my noble friends and myself. These amendments concern the question of whether it is appropriate for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to prosecutions in terrorist cases which are concerned mainly with overseas terrorism or whether that consent should be given, as we suggest, by the Attorney-General.
It will be a useful safeguard to require consent to be given at a high level to the prosecution of offences under the Bill. Of course, we welcome that. Clause 117 as it now stands requires that in all cases the consent be that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our view is that the consent of the DPP is indeed sufficient where the case relates to what I might describe as "internal terrorism". However, a prosecution, for example, for funding of allegedly terrorist activities outside the United Kingdom, or, to take another example, weapons training for overseas terrorism prosecuted under Clause 54, may raise very sensitive political issues.
If the organisation in question to which the accused person is said to belong is proscribed under the Bill, the decision is in some ways much simpler. The political decision regarding the justification of prosecution for membership of or activities under the aegis of that

1085
organisation will already have been taken by the Secretary of State when he made the proscription order. Therefore, we believe that in the case of prosecution for offences under Clauses 11 to 13, which come into play only when the relevant organisation is a proscribed organisation, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is adequate. However, all the offences referred to in Amendment No. 176 can be committed by members of an organisation which is not proscribed.
At Second Reading of the Bill, I, as did a number of other speakers, touched on the difficulties concerning overseas terrorist organisations which conduct fundraising, organisational or other activities in this country. They raise the question of whether the activities of such an organisation are ones that we support to an extent which would make it inappropriate to prosecute, even if technically they come within the definition of terrorism. I do not believe, for example, that in this country we would have wished to prosecute someone who raised funds in the 1980s for the African National Congress, even though some of the activities carried on by the ANC during the course of its armed struggle undoubtedly came within any reasonable definition of terrorism. Therefore, a decision would have to be taken as to whether the ANC was an organisation whose members we should prosecute if they conducted fund raising or training in this country.
The Director of Public Prosecutions is a civil servant. He or she is and should be non-political. However, the decision to prosecute for involvement in overseas terrorism requires to be taken by someone who certainly has political experience and good political antennae. Of course, the decision must not be taken as a political decision. If that happened it could lead to disaster, as, indeed, happened with the decision of Sir Patrick Hastings, the Attorney-General in the first Labour government in the Campbell case in 1924.
However, we believe that the decision must be taken by someone who has a political background and, above all, by someone who sits in one or other House of Parliament and who can be called upon to explain himself in that House. I do not intend in any way to be disrespectful to Mr David Calvert-Smith, the present DPP, but I certainly believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would be admirably placed to undertake the difficult task of deciding whether or not prosecution should be authorised in these borderline cases.
The Conservative amendments propose to require all prosecutions under the Bill to have the consent of the Attorney-General. We do not object to that in principle but it seems to us that the decision in cases of domestic terrorism is likely to depend much more on nuts and bolts issues, such as whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. Our own feeling is that those decisions can properly be taken by the DPP and thus save the time of the Attorney-General. However, I express the hope that the Government will
1086
be willing to accept the principle behind either our amendment or that of the Conservatives, which we would support in default of our own. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just pointed out, we also have two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 174 and 175, which go slightly further than the Liberal Democrat Amendments Nos. 173 and 176, also being debated. First, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said with regard to his amendments concerning overseas terrorism and making the case that proceedings should not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General where they concern terrorism wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom.
There is also a case for saying that, given the political nature of all terrorist offences, the Attorney-General is the right person to sanction prosecution for all these offences, whether or not they are concerned with foreign terrorism. That is obviously the effect of our amendments. However, apart from that, there is a potential difficulty in trying to distinguish between terrorism which is wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom and terrorism which is not.
Much of the terrorism about which we have been speaking this afternoon, though by no means all, is in connection with Ireland. There is reason to suppose that a good deal of the capacity of PIRA and other related organisations exists outside the United Kingdom; that is, substantially in the Republic of Ireland and, to a small extent, further afield. Is PIRA terrorism, therefore, wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom? When PIRA was active, the bombs it let off and the incidents it perpetrated were within the United Kingdom. The same can be said now of the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. But there are other organisations at the Protestant end of the scale, the loyalist end, which have carried out attacks in the Republic of Ireland. I do not think they would claim to have carried out more offences in the Republic of Ireland than in Northern Ireland; nor would anyone point to that fact. Certainly, they are not doing so at present.
However, I mention that to draw attention to the potential difficulty of trying to distinguish in this way between terrorism wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom and other terrorism; that is to say, within the United Kingdom. That is one reason for marginally preferring our Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 to those moved by the noble Lord on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I believe the point is worth the consideration of the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not want Members of the Committee on the Benches opposite to get too excited, but my speaking note starts, "Resist-but".
It is common ground between us that there should be a consent provision in relation to the main offences in the Terrorism Bill. Clause 117 of the Bill provides for that. The issue is whether these offences in some or

1087
all circumstances should be subject to Attorney-General rather than Director of Public Prosecution consent.
Amendments Nos. 173 and 176 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, propose that where offences relate to terrorism wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom there should be Attorney-General consent for a prosecution to go ahead. At Second Reading the noble Lord indicated that he supported such an approach because of the difficult and sensitive issues which can arise in connection with such cases. Perhaps I may say that he developed that argument very well this afternoon, with his usual talent. He said that political antennae were required. I believe that that is, indeed, the case.
The noble Lord also stressed the importance of the involvement of someone directly accountable to Parliament in issues which can touch on international relations and related matters. That is a wise observation.
I am sure that the Committee will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated on the first day of Committee that we have sympathy with those arguments. We recognise the particular sensitivities that may apply in international cases. However, we are not entirely persuaded that Amendments Nos. 173 and 176 quite do the trick. On a technical point, they do not cover Northern Ireland. We take the view that any change to the current consent provisions should also apply there.
More substantively, we should like to look carefully at the formula proposed for defining an international case. That may have some bearing on the comments made by the noble Lord. Lord Cope. It is important that the right ground is covered, and as clearly as possible. We need to reflect further on whether the phrase,
"terrorism wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom",
fully meets those tests. For instance, we are not sure that it is entirely clear whether the formula applies to acts that take place wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom or to acts undertaken in the United Kingdom or elsewhere to advance a cause wholly or mainly connected with a place other than the United Kingdom, or both. This is far from straightforward territory. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that we want to consider further whether the approach adopted in the amendments is the best one in all the circumstances.
As we have indicated, we have sympathy with the concern underlying the amendments, although we cannot accept them in their current form. We should like to take them away for further consideration with a view to tabling further amendments of our own at Report stage.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. These amendments go further—although the principle is the same in terms of the major offences under the Bill—in arguing that they should be subject to Attorney-General rather than DPP consent.
1088
We believe that the amendments perhaps go a step too far. We have indicated that we have sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We accept the case for requiring the involvement of the Attorney-General in international cases because of the sensitivities which have been alluded to in the debate. However, we do not think that it is necessary to require his personal consent for prosecutions under the Bill which do not have an international dimension. That is not to say that we do not recognise the many delicate issues which may be involved in deciding public interest in such cases. However, the DPP is well used to making such decisions in complex and sensitive areas. It is always open to him to consult the Attorney-General on particularly difficult and sensitive cases. Indeed, the Attorney-General is informed as a matter of course of all serious cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions can and does raise individual cases of concern in their regular discussions.
It is important that Attorney-General consent to prosecution is reserved for the most sensitive and serious cases of all and that the numbers of categories of cases he has to consider personally are kept to a manageable number so that he can give them the sufficient detail of attention they require. I think the House will agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere.
We have indicated that we intend to table amendments at Report stage to provide for Attorney-General consent in international cases, but we are not persuaded that the case has been made also to require his personal involvement in cases without that international dimension.
The fact that some cases under the PTA are currently subject to DPP consent—primarily Sections 16A and B concerning the possession of articles or information for terrorist purposes—indicates that the DPP will not be taking on an area of work with which he is entirely unfamiliar.
In the light of our undertaking to table the amendments I have described at Report stage, I trust that noble Lords will not seek to press their amendments.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for what is certainly a more than moderately encouraging reply. I am grateful that he has accepted the principle behind our amendments. I have enough knowledge of the problems of parliamentary drafting to recognise that opposition amendments are rarely perfect. I am sure that ours could be improved upon. I shall look forward with interest to seeing what is proposed at Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 not moved.]
Clause 117 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 176A:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause—
DEFENCES
(".—(1) Subsection (2) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove a particular matter.
(2) If the person adduces sufficient evidence to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
(3) Subsection (4) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) a court—

(a) may make an assumption in relation to a person charged with an offence unless a particular matter is proved, or

(b) may accept a fact as sufficient evidence unless a particular matter is proved.

(4) If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the matter mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) the court shall treat it as proved unless the prosecution disproves it beyond reasonable doubt.
(5) The provisions in respect of which subsections (2) and (4) apply are—

(a) sections 39(5)(a), 54, 57, 58. 77 and 103 of this Act, and

(b) sections 13, 32 and 33 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (possession and information offences) as they have effect by virtue of Schedule 1 to this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Crown servants, regulators, &c]:
[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 178:
Page 55, line 7, at end insert ("any of").
The noble Lord said: Before addressing the amendments in this group in detail, it may be helpful for me briefly to explain Clause 122.
The clause lists the Bill's order-making powers and provides that they should be made by statutory instrument and may contain savings and transitional provisions. Importantly, it also says which orders are subject to affirmative or negative resolution. An urgency procedure is provided by subsections (4) and (5).
During the Report stage of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend Mr Adam Ingram advised that, although the Government felt that the delegated powers in the Bill were subject to the appropriate scrutiny, the powers would of course be looked at carefully by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation of this House.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it seemed to me that he may be talking about the subsequent amendment. Is he talking about Amendment No. 178 and thus Clause 118?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should have indicated that I am talking to Amendment No. 178 and working through the other amendments which are similarly grouped. I thought I made it clear that I was addressing the grouping.
1090
If the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee felt that any of the procedures were inappropriate, we would have regard to its recommendations.
Amendment No. 178 is a minor and technical drafting amendment. It gives more flexibility in the making of regulations under Clause 118. Amendments Nos. 178, 190, 191 and 208 are also minor and are technical drafting corrections.
Amendment No. 180 corrects an error which was spotted by the DPSC at paragraph 42 of its report. Amendment No. 181, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, addresses the same point, but I trust that he will agree to withdraw his version.
The more substantive amendments in this group concern whether certain order-making powers in the Bill should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure. Paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 7 requires the kind of passenger information which carriers may be required to provide to be specified by order by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 8 requires provision to be made, by order, for Scotland, allowing a solicitor to be present at interviews, subject to any conditions set out in the order.
Those two powers are currently subject to the negative procedure. The DPSC recommended, at paragraphs 39 and 41 of its report, that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure on the first occasion that they are made. We considered the committee report carefully and decided to accept those recommendations. Amendments Nos. 179 and 185 put that decision into effect.
Amendments Nos. 183 to 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would make those two powers subject to the affirmative procedure on every occasion when they are used. We are not persuaded of the need to go that far; we do not believe that is necessary. So having started from a proposal that the powers should be subject to negative resolution, and having considered the concerns outlined in the DPSC report, we believe that the "first-time only" affirmative procedure strikes the right balance. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: We are pleased that the Government accepted the requirement that a first-time order should be subject to affirmative resolution. We regard that opinion by the committee to be important and constructive and are pleased that the Government are accepting it.
Lord Goodhart: As a member of the committee, I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in saying that we are happy that the Government accepted the recommendation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Orders and regulations]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has already spoken to Amendment No. 179. But I should remind

1091
the Committee that, if it is accepted, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 183, 184, 187 and 188 as they will have been pre-empted.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 179:
Page 57, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No 180:
Page 57, line 40, leave out ("118(2)") and insert ("118(1) or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 182:
Page 57, line 41, after ("52(1)") insert ("(a) or (b)").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee. I shall move Amendment No. 182 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. This is a drafting amendment, but I am happy to explain it more fully than usual as it has been requested, properly, that it be dealt with on its own.
Paragraphs 45 to 52 deal with insolvency in relation to forfeiture and restraint orders—this relates to Schedule 4 of the Bill—and cover the whole of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 51 provides protection for insolvency practitioners who seize or dispose of property subject to a restraint or forfeiture order. The key provision is paragraph 51(2), which says that, provided the conditions in 51(1) are fulfilled,
"The insolvency practitioner shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence".
However, paragraph 51 only works for insolvency practitioners in the United Kingdom. But it is also possible that property may be seized or disposed of by an insolvency practitioner based outside the United Kingdom.
Paragraph 52, which replicates paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, therefore provides that:
"An order may be made … to secure that an Islands or external insolvency practitioner has the same rights [in relation to property in the UK] … as he would have if he were an insolvency practitioner in that part of the United Kingdom".
The procedure for making the order under paragraph 52 depends on which part of the UK the property is situated in—and this is where we come to the amendment.
Under paragraph 52(2), if the property is in Great Britain, the order is made by the Secretary of State. Such orders are to be subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 122. But if the property is in Northern Ireland, the order is made by the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. The procedure for an order of this kind is set out in paragraph 52(3). It is to be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of Section 41(6) of the Interpretation (Northern Ireland) Act 1954. That replicates the provision in subparagraph (7) of
1092
paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which was added to the 1989 Act by the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
Because the procedure for orders under paragraph 52(1)(c) is set out in paragraph 52(3), it follows that the procedure in Clause 122 should not apply here; that is, in Clause 122. But the present wording of Clause 122(2)(letter "i") suggests that all of paragraph 52(1) is included. That overlap could cause uncertainty. That is why we have tabled the amendment. It clarifies that for orders under paragraph 52(1)(c), the procedure to be followed is that in paragraph 52(3) of Schedule 4, not Clause 122. I hope that that is sufficiently clear to explain to the Committee why the Government are moving this particular amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thought that was a very clear explanation of this highly complex matter. My only quibble is that I think it is actually (i) rather than (1).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 185:
Page 57, line 44, at end insert—
("(2A) In the cases of—

(a) the first order to be made under paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 7, and

(b) the first order to be made under paragraph 21 of Schedule 8,

the order shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament (and subsection (2)(j) or (1) shall not apply).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 186 to 188 not moved.]
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 58, line 19, after ("opinion") insert ("and his reasons for holding that opinion").
The noble Viscount said: This subsection allows the Secretary of State to override Parliament in matters of urgency. The amendment seeks to require him to give the reasons for his opinion when making such an order. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: The amendments in my name, Amendment Nos. 189A and 189B, are grouped with this amendment. The clause as it stands requires the Secretary of State to get an affirmative resolution from each House of Parliament in order to proscribe an organisation. However, as we discussed at an earlier stage at Clause 122(4), the Secretary of State has the power, if he is of the opinion that it is a matter of urgency, to proscribe an organisation without the approval of Parliament, and that proscription remains in force for a period of 40 days after which, if it has not then received the approval of both Houses of Parliament, it lapses.

1093
I objected to this on the first day of Committee and I gave the example that the Secretary of State could proscribe an organisation one morning at 10 o'clock and that a person going out and collecting subscriptions on behalf of the organisation at 10.05 would be committing an offence which might land him in prison, even though he had no knowledge that the order had been made. This is fundamentally unjust. Proscription is such a serious measure that it should always be sanctioned by Parliament and we should not extend that power to the Secretary of State the power an organisation at five minutes' notice and without the knowledge of the members of that organisation.
When we were discussing this previously, I do not believe that the Minister gave the Committee much of an indication of how or in what circumstances the urgency power would be used. As far as I am aware, that power that has not been used in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will explain what circumstances the Government envisage might occur in the Province which justify the use by the Secretary of State of such an extreme power. What is the justification for extending it to the whole of the United Kingdom? Terrorism has flourished in Northern Ireland in the past. There may have been new organisations of an extremely dangerous character springing up which may theoretically have justified the Secretary of State acting urgently in order to prevent those activities from continuing over the next 40 days until an order was made by Parliament. But can we imagine that such a development would occur on the mainland of the United Kingdom? Is it not always within the power of Parliament, if it sees that the circumstances justify it, to make emergency legislation extending the powers that have already been granted to the Secretary of State and to say that it is not enough to have an affirmative resolution and that we must give Ministers this power of urgency which did not exist before?
In the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act which came before your Lordships in the summer of 1998, we went through every stage of the Bill in a single day. So, it is not that Ministers cannot take powers if they really need them to deal with terrorist threats as a matter of extreme urgency. If there is no proper justification for the power, it should not be included in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will either give us a thorough explanation or say that this will be reconsidered on Report.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps I may raise another point which arises from these amendments in my noble friend's name. It seems to me that there is a problem as regards what happens if an order is made under the urgency procedure relating to the proscription on an organisation and that order is not then approved within the 40-day period. Clause 122(5)(b) states:
"an order's ceasing to have effect shall be without prejudice to anything previously done".
I understand why there is that provision. Obviously you do not want people who have taken actions on behalf of the Government in reliance on that order to be subject to prosecution for what was done under an
1094
order that had legal authority at the time. But it seems to me that there is a particular problem if anybody has been convicted. I think it unlikely, in practical terms, that anybody would be convicted within 40 days, but it is possible. In those circumstances, if Parliament has not seen fit to endorse the order by an affirmative resolution, it would be inappropriate for somebody who has been convicted under that order to have that conviction standing on the record. While this seems to me to be a pretty improbable circumstance, should not there be a provision in the Bill to ensure that, in such circumstances, that conviction does not stand?
Lord Bach: Clause 122(4) provides for an urgency procedure for most of the affirmative powers in the Bill. Amendment No. 189 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would add to this procedure a requirement that an order made in this way should include a declaration of the Secretary of State's reasons for his opinion that the urgency procedure is necessary. Although we recognise that Parliament has a legitimate interest in seeing that such procedures are not misused, we cannot accept the need for, or the value of, this particular amendment.
As the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said in its report on the Bill:
"The use of emergency or urgency procedures is a well-trawled concept, and Parliament only agrees to these where they are considered strictly necessary. The appropriateness of the use of such powers is no doubt one which the future Human Rights Committee will keep under review".
That is right but it is a much broader issue than we can properly address in the context of this Bill. The noble Viscount's proposal should be considered in that broader context. Meanwhile, of course, I give an assurance that no Secretary of State under the present Government will use the procedure without proper reasons and obviously the same would be true of any other likely government.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 189A and 189B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We are grateful to him for raising the issue of what happens if an organisation is proscribed by an order made under the urgency procedure and Parliament subsequently withholds its consent for the order.
We do not believe that an amendment along these lines is necessary. We can see that the noble Lord's amendments are intended as a safeguard against abuse of the urgency procedure. We believe that we have already provided an important safeguard in the appeals process set out in Part II. Our view currently is that an organisation which believes that it should not be proscribed should rely on that process rather than seeking to use Parliament as a kind of appeal court.
We accept that not for the first time the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Goodhart, have raised an important and interesting point.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We are not suggesting that the organisation will use Parliament. That is a most unlikely scenario. We are suggesting that, for whatever reason, Parliament declines to pass a resolution to

1095
approve the order. The result of that is that the appeals process never comes into existence so that somebody who has been convicted cannot rely on that process of deproscription and the right to appeal following a deproscription order. There is nothing left to be done. It seems to me that that is a small but not unimportant lacuna in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: I have said that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have raised an important and interesting point. No doubt we shall consider again on Report the whole area of proscription. Therefore I give an undertaking that we shall think further on this matter before then. I believe that that is really what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wanted from me today. We shall come back either with an amendment or with a fuller reassurance as to why such an amendment is not needed.
I was asked whether the urgency procedure has ever been used in Northern Ireland. The answer is that it has. If a new organisation made itself known by means of a terrorist outrage, the public would obviously expect any government to act immediately. The noble Lord used the phrase "proscription at five minutes' notice". That may have been a form of words but it is a misapprehension on his part. "Urgency" is not five minutes' notice. It is well established and already used for the whole of the United Kingdom.
As the Committee will probably be aware, those orders are made to come into force on the following day. That is a detail only but perhaps it is worth putting it on the record.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The question was raised as to whether a prosecution could reach that point within the 40 days. I am not quite sure whether it is 40 days full stop or 40 sitting days. Clearly, the Summer Recess is relevant to that. There may be times when it is difficult for the Government to act if Parliament is not sitting and not likely to be sitting for some weeks, as occurs during the Summer Recess. It may be necessary to use the power in those circumstances.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I can tell him that it is 40 sitting days.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In which case, it is more likely that a prosecution may proceed far enough for the amendment to be relevant.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances. In view of the undertaking that we can look again at this matter on Report, I certainly shall not press my amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his response to Amendment No. 189 which I shall read with care in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 189A and 189B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 190 and 191:
Page 58, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 58, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (1)(a) and (3)(d) do not apply to an order made under regulations made under section 96.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 123 and 124 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 192 to 202:
Page 140, line 2, at end insert—
("Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c.80)
.—(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 67(7)(b) (computation of sentences) 1 or "section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989" substitute "section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".").
Page 140, line 30, leave out ("paragraphs 1(1), 2 and 5 of Schedule 8 to") and insert ("any provision of").
Page 140, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert—
("(7) For section 61(9)(b) (fingerprinting: disapplication) substitute—
"(b) applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions." ").
Page 141, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (8) and insert—
("(8) For section 62(12) (intimate samples: disapplication) substitute—
"(12) Nothing in this section applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions; and subsection (1A) shall not apply where the non-intimate samples mentioned in that subsection were taken under paragraph 9A of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000." ").
Page 141, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert—
("(9) For section 63(10) (non-intimate samples: disapplication) substitute—
"(10) Nothing in this section applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions." ").
Page 141, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (12) and insert—
("(12) For section 118(2)(a) (definition of police detention) substitute—
"(a) he has been taken to a police station after being arrested for an offence or after being arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, or".").
Page 141, line 33, after ("74(2)(d)") insert ("and (e)").
Page 141, line 35, at end insert ("or
(e) an order under section 111 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (forfeiture orders),".").
Page 142, line 23, leave out from ("substitute") to ("to") and insert (""sections 37 and 38 of, and Schedules 5 and 6").
Page 142, line 28, leave out ("paragraphs 1(1), 2 and 5 of Schedule 8 to") and insert ("any provision of").
Page 142, line 37, leave out from (""(b)") to ("applies") in line 38.

1097
Page 142, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
(""(12) Nothing in this Article applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions; and paragraph (1A) shall not apply where the non-intimate samples mentioned in that paragraph were taken under paragraph 9A of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000."").
Page 142, line 45, leave out from ("Article") to ("applies") in line 46.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 202ZA not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 202A to 205:
Page 143, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) for paragraph (f) there shall be substituted—
"(f) section 111 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (forfeiture orders)." ").
Page 144, line 34, at end insert—
("Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (c.35)
.—(1) The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 5 (fixed term prisoners: special cases)—

(a) in subsection (2) for "section 16(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996" substitute "section 80(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000",

(b) in subsection (3)(a) for "section 16(2) of the 1996 Act" substitute "section 80(2) of the 2000 Act",

(c) in subsection (4) for "section 16(2) of the 1996 Act" substitute "section 80(2) of the 2000 Act", and

(d) at the end of subsection (4)(b) insert ", and

(c) section 16(2) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996."

(3) For section 14(3)(a) (inadmissibility of evidence or information in certain proceedings) substitute—
"(a) be admissible in proceedings on applications made under paragraph 1, 2, 5. 11, 13, 22, 28 or 30 of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000.".
.—(1) This paragraph applies to a reference in section 14(2) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (inadmissibility of evidence or information in certain proceedings) to an offence under a provision ("the old provision") of—

(a) the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, or

(b) the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.

(2) The reference shall be taken as including a reference to an offence under this Act which is committed in circumstances which would have amounted to the commission of an offence under the old provision before it ceased to have effect.").
Page 144, line 43, leave out ("(g)") and insert ("(h)").
Page 145, line 1, leave out ("(h)") and insert ("(i)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 205A and 205B:
Page 145, line 46, column 1 leave out ("Paragraph 2") and insert ("Part I").
Page 145, line 46, column 3, at end insert—
("Part I of Schedule 2.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 125 [Report to Parliament]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 205C:
Page 59, line 4, after ("report") insert ("prepared by a professional legal adviser who is independent of the Government").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 206 and 207. Clause 125 provides for a report to be prepared on the workings of the Bill, or the Act as it will become. That is in line with what has happened in recent years in relation to the emergency legislation which is being replaced by the provisions of this Bill.
To a certain extent the amendments are probing but they are intended to get on the record a little more detail about what the Government have in mind as regards that report. There are three points listed in the various amendments.
First, it is important that we continue to have the benefit of an independent report on the working of this legislation. We all know that, as has been said this afternoon, we are passing draconian provisions to apply in circumstances when we all accept that draconian provisions are necessary. Nevertheless, it is right that we should ponder them from two points of view: first, to make sure that draconian provisions are still required and that the necessity for them still exists. There is no doubt about that in my mind at the moment but, nevertheless, that should he reviewed and in detail. But, secondly—and more importantly—we must make sure that they are working properly so that we do our best to defeat terrorism, while also ensuring that proper regard is being paid to human rights and everything that we, as a civilised country, hope to keep in mind in applying draconian legislation.
Such reports have been prepared for the past few years by Mr John Rowe QC, to whom we paid tribute earlier. Indeed, his work was much quoted in some of our previous debates. Formerly the reports were produced by other distinguished lawyers, notably by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for quite a few years. It is important that such reports should continue to be prepared by a "professional legal adviser" who is independent of the Government and is of similar standing to those distinguished gentlemen.
Secondly, Amendment No. 206 provides that the reports should cover not just the legislation itself, as specified in the Bill, but all the orders and regulations that are made under it. It has been absolutely apparent throughout our discussions that a great deal of the important detail of these provisions lies in orders and regulations made under the Act. Therefore, it is the way that the orders and regulations are being applied which is important, as well as the Act in general.
My third point is made in a slightly sideways sense in Amendment No. 207. This amendment would ensure that, as at present, such reports should be debated in "each House of Parliament". That is currently achieved by way of the relevant legislation expiring unless it is debated, which is an extremely fierce form of guillotine to ensure a parliamentary debate. We do not propose such a process, but we suggest that there

1099
should at least be a trip-wire in the provision to ensure that the Government do lay the reports before Parliament and gain its approval for the way in which the draconian legislation is applied. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It gives me great pleasure to support both the amendment and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. In a previous incarnation I had the privilege of appearing before many of these distinguished persons. Although their conclusions were sometimes a little inconvenient to some of us—and even more inconvenient for some governments—their reports instilled confidence in the community in general. They disarmed critics of the legislation from abroad—usually people with very little real knowledge of the situation with which we were dealing. We have benefited greatly from the views and services of those distinguished persons. I warmly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his explanation of the amendments and especially for drawing attention to their probing nature. This is both a necessary and an important discussion.
It has long been the case that annual reporting on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Emergency Provisions Act has greatly assisted both this and another place in our respective consideration of the annual renewals. The Government accepted at an early stage of the Bill that an annual report to both Houses of Parliament would be welcomed, and brought forward an amendment to that effect which now appears in Clause 125.
I shall work through each amendment in turn, and begin with Amendment No. 205C. It is our intention here that the report will continue to be prepared by someone entirely independent of government; in other words, someone with an independent mind and an independent view. I am happy to place that on record. With that clear commitment, I see no need for the matter to be placed on the face of the Bill.
However, I should not be so happy to accept the other proposition in Amendment No. 205C; namely, that the reviewer must have a legal qualification. I see no reason for the proposition, although a legal background could undoubtedly be beneficial. I yield to no one in my admiration for the legal profession—I dare not, I live with a lawyer. But, having said that, such an absolute requirement might rule out other individuals equally suited to the post who may bring to bear different but equally valuable experience—experience, indeed, which in a sense guarantees their independence. To use a well-worn phrase, we want to find the right person for the job.
Amendment No. 206 would require all orders and regulations made under the Act to be covered by the annual report. I see the aim behind the amendment, but I do not believe that such a provision is entirely necessary. After all, the report is intended to cover the operation of the Act. In our view, this will catch the operation of powers exercisable under secondary
1100
legislation. The term "working of this Act" is deliberately wide to enable the report to cover the operation of the powers to whatever extent the reviewer wishes. For example, in his annual reports on the counter-terrorist legislation that is currently in force, Mr John Rowe QC goes to the trouble of looking at letters of complaint to central government on the operation of the Acts.
I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind a further point. In Northern Ireland, the holding centres are subject to a separate review mechanism; and, under this Bill, there is a mechanism for the independent review of the military complaints procedures. So it would not be necessary for these matters to be covered in the annual report, though the reviewer could, as I explained, look at them if he or she wished to do so. I believe that it is far better for us to leave it to the discretion of the independent reviewer to decide what specific ground should apply. As drafted, Clause 125 gives him or her the latitude to cover the noble Lord's point.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 207, which would require an annual debate on the report, with a move to quarterly reporting if Parliament does not approve the most recent report. Clause 125 will ensure that the Secretary of State should lay a report before "both Houses of Parliament" about the working of the Act as a whole. But we believe that the question of whether to hold a debate on that report should be left to the proper procedures of this and, indeed, another place, where this clause was added to the Bill.
Many reports are laid before Parliament each year and, clearly, it would not be possible for them all to be debated. It is for this Chamber and another place to decide which reports should be the subject of a specific debate. We do not want to bind Parliament or fetter its discretion, as this amendment would do, to have to debate this report every year; or, as the amendment suggests, more frequently if there were concerns about the content of the report. In the final analysis, we believe that the decision would be best taken year on year in respect of each report, through the usual procedures of the House. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: There was a crumb or two in the Minister's response. First, so far as concerns Amendment No. 205C, we now know that the report will be prepared by an independent adviser. However, the Minister also said that it would not necessarily be prepared by a lawyer. At that point, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came into the Chamber. I was not quite sure whether he had done so in order to intervene on behalf of his profession, but perhaps his entry relates to later business.
I must admit that I was surprised by what the Minister said in that respect. It seems to me that it is essentially a legal job to report on this legislation. I cannot recollect off the top of my head all those who previously prepared reports, but I believe that I am right in saying that all of them have been distinguished lawyers—
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I shall be brief. My only

1101
connection with the legal profession was when I served for many years as a justice of the peace, but I was then "holding the ring", so to speak, and not necessarily on anyone's side.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, made a valid point earlier. We need to reassure the public. The public perception is that a person who is learned in the law, for example, can be trusted to act impartially and to give an impartial view.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I agree with those comments. It is important that a distinguished lawyer should prepare the report. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether under the previous legislation the report was prepared by someone who was not a leading lawyer. However, as far as I can recall, a leading lawyer has always prepared it.
I received more than a crumb, as it were, on Amendment No. 206 as the Minister assured me that all orders and regulations were covered by the provision. As regards Amendment No. 207, I received, if more than a crumb, only half a loaf. The Minister said that it was for Parliament to decide whether to discuss the report. Strictly speaking, that is correct. However, I hoped that the Minister would say that it was the Government's intention to suggest that both Houses of Parliament should discuss the report. We all know that the Government have a great deal of influence over what is discussed in both Houses of Parliament. The Government have extensive, although not complete, control over the time allocated to business in both Houses of Parliament. I thought that I would be given an undertaking that it was the Government's intention that the report should be discussed in both Houses of Parliament. I certainly think that it should be.
However, I shall not press the matter at this stage. We shall consider it further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 207A and 208:
Page 59, line 10, leave out ("section 2(2)") and insert ("sections 2(2) and (Defences)").
Page 59, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 207A and 208 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 209:
Page 59, line 15, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("( ) Where, immediately before the coming into force of section 2(1)(a), a person is being detained by virtue of a provision of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989—

(a) the provisions of that Act shall continue to apply to him, in place of the corresponding provisions of this Act, until his detention comes to an end, and

(b) nothing in paragraph 4 or 7 of Schedule 15 shall have effect in relation to him during his detention.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 209, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211. These are technical amendments to do with the transitional provisions in the Bill.
As the Committee knows, the Bill replaces the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, (the PTA). Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 128 deal with what happens to people who are being detained under the PTA at the moment when the Bill takes over.
The effect of the Bill as currently drafted is that, if someone is arrested under the arrest power in Section 14 of the PTA, the police will have to apply the Bill regime to their detention as soon as the Bill comes into force. But if someone is arrested under the ports powers in Schedule 5 to the PTA, the PTA regime continues for them up to the end of their detention. We believe that this position is anomalous in that it could lead to different regimes applying to people who were detained at the same time. We are also concerned that the idea of switching to the "Bill" detention regime half-way through someone's detention, as contemplated by Clause 128(1), could be difficult in practice.
We have therefore decided that it will be simpler and just as effective to allow for the PTA detention regimes to continue to the end of the detention period for anyone arrested under the PTA, whether under the arrest power or the ports powers. This is achieved by Amendment No. 209. I remind the Committee that the maximum period any detention could last under this transitional regime is one minute short of seven days.
I should stress that this is very much a belt and braces provision for use in the circumstances where someone is being detained when the Bill comes into effect. We do not envisage that it will be used much—and, of course, it has an extremely limited shelf life.
Amendment No. 210 is a general transitional proposition. It is immediately intended to deal with any problems which might arise in Schedule 15 where the Bill substitutes references to detention under provisions of the Bill for references to detention under provisions of the PTA, but where the policy intention is that references to the former should include references to the latter.
Amendment No. 211 clarifies transitional arrangements for the specific case of Section 14 of the EPA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bachmoved Amendments Nos. 210 and 211:
Page 59, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) A reference in this Act or any other enactment or instrument to a provision of this Act shall (so far as the context permits) he taken to include a reference to a corresponding provision repealed by this Act.").
Page 59, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The repeal by virtue of this Act of section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (young persons convicted of scheduled offences) shall not affect its operation in relation to offences committed while it was in force.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Legal Aid: Gulf War Veterans and Sheep Farmers
6.36 p.m.
The Countess of Marrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the legal aid expenditure to date, and what is the projected funding, for the multi-party actions by Gulf War veterans and sheep farmers.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am patron of the Gulf Veterans' Association. In addition, although I believe that I suffer the chronic effects of repeated low-level exposures to organophosphate sheep dip, I do not, and never have had, any personal interest in the ongoing litigation. Like those who have spoken to me about their concerns, I am having some difficulty in understanding what is going on. I am unhappily aware that "there is something rotten in the State of Denmark". I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be tolerant with me and that he will be able to clarify matters.
It is with reluctance that I raise this matter in your Lordships' House tonight. I have large numbers of letters from farmers and Gulf veterans in which the writers state that they ask only for recognition and treatment for their illnesses and that future cases are prevented. It is the culture of denial that has forced them to turn to the law.
I voice the severe reservations held by members of the Gulf veterans, the sheep farming communities and others involved with these cases, about the manner in which the group actions are being managed. There are huge amounts of taxpayers' money involved in legal aid spending. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that the legal aid moneys should be spent wisely.
I accept that this type of action is expensive. Both these actions are breaking new ground and we are dealing with the cutting edge of scientific knowledge. I understand that the Gulf veterans' case is the first multi-party action to be brought against the Crown since the repeal of Section 10 or the Crown
1104
Proceedings Act of 1947. Some of the claimants are entitled to a full legal aid certificate; others will be required to make some contribution towards their costs; and yet others will be privately funded. Claimants who are required to make monthly payments are expressing very real concerns. They have already paid sums amounting to several thousand pounds. There is no clear time span. Rumour has it that their cases may continue for as long as 20 years, although I hope that that is not the case.
Recent events, which I shall explain, have caused them to have second thoughts about continuing with their action. They now find that they are unable to get off the financial treadmill because they will still be responsible for their share of the generic costs—an unknown sum. None of these claimants could be described as wealthy. Most are men and women with young families. They are struggling to work in order to maintain a roof over their heads despite chronic ill health. They can ill afford this additional monthly burden. Not surprisingly, they are worried.
These group actions have an interesting and extraordinarily complex history. As far as I am able to ascertain, the first sheep clip case was started in 1981. Since then, at least 60 firms of solicitors, from small provincial firms through to large, City firms, have been involved with a growing number of claimants. I know of several sheep dip cases that have fallen by the wayside after large amounts of legal aid moneys have been expended, leaving claimants confused and dissatisfied with the system.
The Gulf veterans had begun their actions by late 1994. By mid-1995 the Legal Aid Board had apparently granted a generic legal aid certificate to Donn & Company, a Manchester firm, for the Gulf cases. The Legal Aid Board then asked for tenders for the generic work from firms with certificates prior to March 1995. After an hiatus, the generic certificate was awarded jointly to Dawbarns of Kings Lynn and Wolferstans of Plymouth in January 1995. Those firms were tasked with carrying out research and co-ordinating the legal process. Late in 1996, it was decided that the sheep dip and the Gulf veterans' cases would be run in tandem because of the organophosphate links. At some later stage the decision was taken to split the Gulf cases involving post-traumatic stress disorder from the remaining Gulf issues, and the PTSD generic certificate was transferred to another Manchester firm, Linder-Myers. I shall disregard the PTSD cases.
In April 1998, the Norfolk legal team working on the sheep dip and Gulf cases moved to a London firm—Hodge, Jones & Allen. The generic certificates were transferred with them. By this time, a pilot study to support scientifically and medically the claimed link between the various factors that may have caused ill health in both the sheep farmers and Gulf Veterans had been set up. There had been some inevitable delays in setting up the study—for example, funding, coordinating a group of high-powered medical and scientific specialists, and the unforeseen death of one of those specialists. Then, in March 1999, the decision

1105
was taken to concentrate all the sheep dip claims on the High Court, and Master Miller was appointed to oversee them.
We now come to the actions that have caused so much concern. By April 1999 there were rumours that the Norfolk team had left Hodge, Jones & Allen for another legal firm. These rumours were eventually confirmed. For several weeks none of the claimants knew whether the generic certificates were to remain with Hodge, Jones & Allen, whether Wolferstans was still involved, or what was happening to the individual cases. The Gulf Veterans' Association officers had contacted the Legal Aid Board as early as February to express their feelings of disquiet about the way their members' cases were being handled. Initially they dealt with the Cambridge office. At the end of April, they were, exceptionally, granted a meeting—which was originally to last for a quarter of an hour and eventually lasted three and a half hours—at the London headquarters of the Legal Aid Board. The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association was not advised of the changes officially until 9th July 1999, and the Gulf Veterans' Association was never formally advised. The secretary of the latter organisation wrote to Mr Mason at the Cambridge office of the Legal Aid Board on 13th July 1999, again expressing his concern and pointing out the shortcomings of the various courses being pursued by the solicitors and the fact that more than 250 veterans had complained about the way in which their cases were being handled. Nothing seems to have come of those representations.
I have a letter from one of the sheep farmers. He has told me that for some time it has been impossible to get any sense out of the lawyers. The whole issue was behind the "generic contract" wall. He says he found that he was being sent to an inappropriate medical coordinator, chosen by a lawyer without any reference to the expert group, and whose summary evidence was then thrown out by Master Miller. He goes on to say:
"It looks very much as if it was deliberately handled in a way that would maximise the lawyers' profits while minimising the chances of any case's success".
The first advice to the medical and scientific specialists of the changes within Hodge, Jones & Allen was received by one of them at the beginning of July 1999. It rapidly became clear that the new legal team did not understand what it was that the specialists were supposed to be doing. Instructions were confusing and contradictory; there was a failure to grasp simple science and a failure to understand that junior solicitors had neither the mandate nor the understanding to design medical investigations. No arrangements have been made for further essential control group studies which would give authority to the medical findings.
Of enormous concern is the fact that the medical data for the sheep dip cases were sent out to individual clients' lawyers in a corrupted form. The wrong medical results were attributed to the wrong clients. Raw medical data were sent to farmers themselves, without explanation and without medical or scientific
1106
approval. Until the Legal Aid Board was asked to intervene, solicitors took upon themselves medical decisions about whether experts could contact clients' physicians. The senior partner of Hodge, Jones & Allen threatened one of the orthopaedic experts.
The next development was that Mr Peter Bright of Wolferstans was instructed to hand over all his generic and individual sheep dip cases—some 500 cases in all—to Hodge, Jones & Allen without any satisfactory explanation.
In the middle of December 1999, Mr Augustus Ullstein, the QC who had been involved with these cases for five years or so, wrote to the senior partner, Mr Patrick Allen, asking what was happening. On 23rd December, Mr Allen informed Mr Ullstein that he was reviewing the whole team, and as he did not see eye to eye with Mr Ullstein he was dismissed from the case. His replacement, Mr Stephen Irwin, QC, was, I understand, totally unfamiliar with all that had occurred previously. Thus the entire working relationship and trust between the carefully chosen experts and counsel was destroyed at the whim of one man with no scientific understanding.
Since then there has been a lack of any consultation with clients or clients' solicitors. Everyone, from individual clients through to the experts, has been in the dark about what progress is being made. Rumour has it that the plaintiffs' evidence is to be simplified and that it is now intended that the valuable scientific evidence gathered so far will not be built upon or even used. If that is the case, I understand that the claimants will be liable for the cost of the work that has been funded by legal aid, said to be £900,000.
As I said, these two group actions are totally different from any previous actions. It is significant that, unlike other successful personal injury group actions that the lawyers cite in their curricula vitae, it would be extremely difficult to take the simplified route whereby the claimant is expected to show that on a particular day at a particular place he or she was exposed to a particular hazard that resulted in a specific harm to him or her. The sheep farmers and the Gulf veterans both recognise that it is essential that the science of causation is proven. Many of those who set out in the hope that they would see justice done are now totally disillusioned. With the passage of years they have seen no progress. What hope have they?
The involvement of government in both these actions is also significant. In the case of the sheep farmers, the Government are not one of the defendants, but the farmers were required, under successive sheep dipping orders issued between 1975 and 1992, to dip their sheep in approved chemicals that included organophosphates once or twice a year. Government were responsible for licensing the products.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor one or two questions. What has been the total legal aid bill for all these cases so far and what is the projected expenditure? Does he believe that the taxpayer is getting value for money for the legal aid payments that have been made, particularly in view of

1107
the recent corruption of the work of the expert group? If he does, what is it that is of value? If he does not, does he share the concerns of the Gulf veterans and the sheep farmers that I have raised today? Does he have any proposals for restoring the momentum of these actions and getting them firmly back on the rails? Would he agree to a meeting with representatives of all the parties concerned if there is anything that is obscure and which could be cleared up?
Finally, the noble and learned Lord should know that I received a letter dated 3rd May 2000 from Mr Patrick Allen of Hodge, Jones & Allen. I found the contents of this letter disturbing in that they contained at least one thinly veiled threat. I am happy that the noble and learned Lord should see this letter and come to his own conclusion.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, raises some important issues. In discussing the ongoing litigation, the first thing to establish is that all of us have at heart the interests of those who have been poisoned by organophosphates and those who are the victims of Gulf War illness.
I declare an interest both as a solicitor and as someone who formerly advised the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, an association for whose members, activities, expertise and commitment I have a high regard.
Like the noble Countess, my purpose is not to address the facts of the claims against the Ministry of Defence and the manufacturers of organophosphates but to look at the conduct of the legal actions, except in so far as they are subject to confidentiality or where they are sub judice. There are in fact some 300 to 1,000 potential claimants of Gulf War illness and some 30 to 60 potential claimants of organophosphate poisoning against a number of manufacturers. The latter cases—those dealing with organophosphate claims—are much more advanced than the Gulf War cases and it is expected that those cases will come to court perhaps within the next 18 months.
In discussing these facts and the cases it is important to note that they are funded under the legal aid regime applying before the Access to Justice Act was passed. As the noble Countess pointed out, there are not many precedents for this kind of case. There are vibration white finger cases, asbestosis cases, growth hormone CJD cases, haemophiliac cases and Opren MMR but not a large number of cases. They are the only ones that readily spring to mind as past and present examples of other group actions. These group actions are extremely complicated and require great skill in execution and a very large amount of medical and scientific investigation is required.
The Lord Chancellor and his department and the Legal Services Commission are to be congratulated on setting up a special multi-party contract unit in February of last year and a panel of some 18 or so law firms deemed qualified to act in this kind of case. In fact the number of firms on the list could, if anything,
1108
be tightened. What is clear, however, is that the multi-party action unit of the Legal Services Commission exercises very close oversight over cases such as those under discussion and as the multi-party contractual arrangements make very clear.
Proposals for research or medical investigations are looked at very carefully. If complaints about the conduct of a case are received, they are heard by representatives of the commission, formerly the Legal Aid Board, and if necessary they insist on a change in representation. That certainly has happened in these cases.
The law firm involved in the present case, Hodge Jones & Allen, is known to be highly competent as a personal injury law firm. It has worked closely with the Legal Services Commission and its predecessor, the Legal Aid Board, and is one of the few firms really well qualified to prosecute multi-party actions. Throughout the two actions in question the commission and the board have agreed on the investigations to be carried out and have granted legal aid to pay for it. Whether the commission will be able to recover those costs depends on the outcome of the action and the judge's ruling on costs at the end of the case.
I shall not attempt here a detailed rebuttal of what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, said, but I can point to a number of areas where her account of matters is partial, to say the least. With regard to the relationship between the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association and the senior partner of Hodge Jones & Allen, the senior partner of Hodge Jones & Allen addressed by invitation the annual meeting of the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association on 25th March this year. I cannot say that that does not demonstrate a reasonably close relationship.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. There are two organisations. There is the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association and the Gulf Veterans Association.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for that intervention. I am very well aware of that, but her case was that the relationship between both associations and the law firm in question was poor. As I understand it, the relationship between the Gulf War Veterans Association and the firm in question is cordial and, if anything, closer with the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association. So the law firm in question has attempted successfully to keep good contact with those associations. In terms of the change of representation in June of last year, that took place in June and was communicated in July. There was no way in which communications to the experts could have been carried out any faster. In terms of the supervision of the cases, the same senior partner of Hodge Jones & Allen has undertaken the supervision of those cases since April 1998. So the supposed break in ability to assess expert evidence is illusory. I suspect that some of the facts on which the noble Countess is relying derive from mischief-making

1109
by one of the experts. I am not going to name him, but I think it is fairly clear that that is where some of the mischief arises.
An impression is being given in this case that injustice is being done to the claimants and that poor management is taking place. From my investigation of these cases that does not appear to be the case. With regard to the allegation about the communications in this case, I have seen the regular newsletters that go out to the claimants in these cases. The organophosphates newsletters in particular are regular and very clear. They make it utterly clear where the case now stands. With regard to the allegation regarding the expertise of the counsel available, it is well known that the counsel who has now been chosen by the law firm in question is highly competent. I believe there is little to be gained by casting doubt on his expertise.
Finally, I turn to the question of the veiled threat in the letter from the senior partner—a very serious allegation to make—of the law firm in question. The paragraph to which I assume the noble Countess alludes states:
"I have discussed your concerns with my leading barrister. We are both very worried that a public debate about these issues will adversely affect the interests of sheep dip farmers in the litigation. Any details raised in this debate will be seized on by the defendants and used if possible to argue that legal aid should be withdrawn from the farmers".
I do not believe that is a veiled threat. The noble Countess had already tabled her Unstarred Question by that point, as I understand it, or at least had indicated her intention of doing so.
I hope that to some degree I have helped to redress the balance of the facts in this case. If the facts are in dispute then clearly the Legal Services Commission will take the necessary action under its own powers. If the Lord Chancellor indicates his wish to do so, I am quite sure that the law firm in question would be only too delighted to take the Legal Services Commission through, yet again, the facts of the case and the work that it has done on the case to date.
Strangely enough, at the end of the day my concerns lie not with the conduct of the current cases or the extent of legal aid assistance granted in these cases, or indeed its cost effectiveness, but with the prospects for the future of this kind of case. The funding code by which the Legal Services Commission operates rightly emphasises the public interest as a determining factor in whether legal aid is granted in these cases. That said, however, the eligibility levels for income by which a judgment is made whether or not to fund legal aid are lower than they were for this kind of case before April this year.
The real problem, however, is the fact that the commission seems to believe that it can set hourly rates at an impossibly low level, lower than are now received under the previous regime, and expect to attract good solicitors and barristers to work in this field in the future. I ask this question: what leading counsel of the Lord Chancellor's acquaintance is prepared to work for £80 or so an hour? The skills required in these cases are considerable. Good team management, excellent
1110
budgetary control and outstanding litigation expertise are necessary. I fear that the claimant with small means in these large multi-party cases is going to be unable to get redress against the big battalions of business and government in the future. The argument of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the commission is that if these cases are successful firms will recoup their full costs. The fact is, however, that a law firm cannot afford to lose even one case of this type. After all, on winning, a firm is able to receive only its proper costs and no more than that.
As a harbinger of this I cite the recent tobacco case. It was taken on on a speculative basis and the solicitor involved, Martin Day of Leigh Day & Co, has said that the firm cannot afford to fight this type of case any more. I think that that demonstrates that at least we should have some fears for the future.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I do not have sufficient intimacy with the facts of this case to pass judgment on the submissions of the noble Countess, Lady Mar. But such is the reputation of the noble Countess in your Lordships' House for probity and for fearless advocacy on behalf of those in distress, that I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be taking what she has had to say to your Lordships very seriously indeed.
Whatever the ultimate facts about the causal link between the distress in which these large numbers of people have found themselves and its alleged cause, organophosphates, there is no doubt that there are a large number of bewildered people who do not understand the legal processes into which they are, together with the public purse, pouring a great deal of money. At the end of the day, it may be that the problem turns out to be not so much one of bad advice, but rather the inability of lawyers to communicate with their clients about what they are doing on their behalf. That may prove to be a lesson for all lawyers, not only those who are Members of your Lordships' House—including myself—but those outside as well.
This type of case is extremely complex. It also has a particular characteristic in that it requires a great deal of money to be paid up front before a proper assessment can be made of the likelihood of success or failure. Although I was one of the sternest critics of the Access to Justice Bill of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, one thing I applauded was his decision to single out for special treatment this kind of dispute.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already said, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has set up a multi-party panel of solicitors. I believe it comprises 16—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it comprises 18 lawyers.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that correction. Moreover, a new multi-party unit has been set up within the commission. It is there to supervise the disposition of funds.

1111
In this case, the decision has been taken to instruct a single group of lawyers to deal with the problem of causation. This group of lawyers has moved from one firm to another. In the end, it will be for the newly established commission to decide which group of lawyers in which firm will deal with which case. That is not a decision upon which I am in a position to comment. Only the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, using the brief that he will receive from the commission, will be able to give a definitive answer to that.
I know that this matter is causing great distress to many people. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, should be warmly congratulated on her efforts in raising it on the Floor of the House. I now look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to say in response.
7.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, multi-party actions are claims brought by several different parties who have been affected by a single incident, like a major transport disaster or a common cause such as an allegedly harmful chemical. It is common for the Legal Aid Board—from 1st April this year, the Legal Services Commission—to fund one test case in the first instance.
Because the defendants in these cases are typically large organisations with substantial resources available to them, there is a great deal at stake in the claims. It is therefore important that public funds are made available to help litigants to put sue such claims before the courts. The Legal Services Commission has special arrangements for handling these complex and costly cases to ensure that they are pursued as efficiently as possible.
In most, individual clients may retain their own solicitors, but the generic work, which includes all the key issues of law and fact in the case, is handled by an expert solicitor drawn by tender from the quality assured panel of legal firms which make up the multiparty action panel. To win a place on the panel, solicitors' firms must show that they have recent experience of co-ordinating or handling generic work and sufficient resources to handle actions of this size.
As has already been said, contracts for the generic work in each multi-party action are managed by the commission's own multi-party action unit. Each contract has a dedicated case manager, a senior solicitor experienced in handling multi-party actions and employed by the commission. The aim of these managers is to ensure that cases are taken forward effectively in the interests of the clients, consistent with the need to protect the public purse. If the unit is dissatisfied with a firm's conduct of a case, it can terminate a contract and may enter into a new contract with another firm. Significant decisions on multi-party actions made by the unit can also be referred to the multi-party action committee, which is made up of representatives of the legal profession and consumer associations and the Legal Services Commission.
1112
Perhaps I may turn now to the two multi-party actions to which the noble Countess has referred. I take it that she favours the grant of public funding for these cases and of course her vigour in publicising the concerns of the Gulf War veterans and sheep farmers is, as has been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, well known to this House. The first is an action by a group of ex-servicemen who fought in the Gulf War. They allege that they sustained injuries as a result of exposure to substances, including organophosphates, used, they say, without proper precautions. Some claims concern birth defects said to arise from the fathers' exposure to these substances.
Around 500 legal aid certificates have been issued. The amount spent so far on generic work —that is, work on the issues common to all the certifications—is just under £0.9 million. The action is still at the investigation stage and expert evidence is being assembled. No proceedings have yet been issued. As to the future, it is not the practice to make public projected fundings for actions supported by legal aid lest that information give any forensic advantage to defendants. The generic work is being handled by the firm Hodge Jones & Allen.
The second multi-party action is a claim by farmers and their workers against the manufacturers of' products containing organophosphates used in sheep dips for alleged failure to make the products safe or to give full advice on their safe use. Seventy-two legal aid certificates have been issued so far. To date, a total of £1.1 million has been paid, of which £0.8 million relates to the generic issues. This action is more advanced than the Gulf War case. Full statements of claim and applications for specific disclosure are now being considered. The generic work is again being handled by Hodge Jones & Allen.
Both the Gulf War and the sheep farmers' multi-party actions were originally, as has been noted, handled by Dawburns, a Norfolk firm. That firm was also handling a third multi-party action involving alleged damage caused by a vaccine. The facts of what happened are these. In 1998, the team handling the three multi-party actions moved from Dawburns to the London firm, Hodge Jones & Allen. The contracts for all three cases were transferred to Hodge Jones & Allen, which formed a large team to handle the cases, including the members of the original Dawburns team. In July 1999, however, the team split. The individuals originally from Dawburns decided to move to another firm, Alexander Harris.
It has to be said that both Alexander Harris and Hodge Jones & Allen are experienced personal injury firms who are members of the commission's multiparty action panel and are capable of handling complex multi-party actions. After some discussion in that new state of affairs, Hodge Jones & Allen and Alexander Harris jointly proposed that the Gulf War and sheep farmers' cases should remain with Hodge Jones & Allen and that the vaccine case should transfer to Alexander Harris. The two firms issued a joint statement to inform their clients of the proposals.

1113
At that stage, the Gulf Veterans Association approached the Legal Aid Board to express its disquiet at the upheaval that would follow the splitting up of the team and to raise some complaints about the handling of the case thus far. These were the only representations made to the Legal Aid Board. None was received from the larger representative body, the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association. There is no evidence of which I am aware of any general client dissatisfaction with the handling of the claims either by Hodge Jones & Allen or the by the Legal Aid Board, now the Legal Services Commission.
Of course it is disquieting for clients when there is a split of this kind in a legal team. The Legal Aid Board recognised that there was subjective client loyalty to the original Dawburns team. However, the board's responsibility was to make an objective assessment of how the cases could most effectively be taken forward in the interests of the clients. In agreeing that the Gulf War and sheep farmers' cases should remain with Hodge Jones & Allen, the Legal Aid Board took into account the following factors.
First, the three actions had grown to such an extent that it was doubtful that any one firm could effectively manage all three. Secondly, there was a particularly strong overlap of scientific issues in the Gulf War and sheep dip claims—because both actions related to the use of organophosphates—indicating that a single firm should be responsible for both. Thirdly, imposing a division of the work contrary to the agreed proposals of the two firms might have delayed progress while the firms contested the decision and could have jeopardised future goodwill and co-operation between them. Fourthly, although the resources at Hodge Jones & Allen were initially severely reduced by the move, Patrick Allen of that firm was able in a short period to assemble an impressive team of eight solicitors and scientific and support staff, including Mark Mildred, one of the most experienced multiparty solicitors in the country. Finally, although expertise had been lost from Hodge Jones & Allen, the
1114
same would have been true had the work been placed with Alexander Harris, which would have had to replace the support staff and the medical and scientific expertise which had chosen to remain with Hodge Jones & Allen.
I hope that these general explanations reassure your Lordships and the noble Countess that the Legal Aid Board, now the Legal Services Commission, does take account of the interests of clients and the taxpayer at every stage in the handling of multi-party actions. Of course, I cannot possibly comment on the allegations made by the noble Countess, having only just heard them. They are quite worrying allegations to make against professional men and women. If the level of dissatisfaction that she expresses is really there and widely there, that is troubling.
It appears to me that this is a matter for the Legal Services Commission rather than for me. However, I can certainly say from this Dispatch Box that the Legal Services Commission will be more than happy to meet those who are complaining and to evaluate the nature of the complaints. Having listened to the noble Countess, however, I believe that the Legal Services Commission would find it much easier to assist if the complaints were set out in writing, in detail, so that they could be considered in advance. Certainly, the Legal Services Commission will listen with care to all complaints that are made, as it is its objective to ensure that the interests of clients and the beneficiaries of legal aid are advanced.

Financial Services and Markets Bill
Returned from the Commons with an amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof; with an amendment agreed to with an amendment; and with the remaining amendments agreed to. The Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.

  EU External Aid Programme
  EU External Aid Programme
  Rajasthan
  Rajasthan
  Electronic Trade and VAT
  Electronic Trade and VAT
  Budget Press Releases
  Budget Press Releases
  Clean Vehicles Task Force: Report
  Clean Vehicles Task Force: Report
  London Underground: Escalator Repairs
  London Underground: Escalator Repairs
  GM Trials: Bee-keepers and Fruit Growers
  GM Trials: Bee-keepers and Fruit Growers
  Mobile Concrete Pump Vehicle Licensing
  Mobile Concrete Pump Vehicle Licensing
  Animal Carcass Incineration
  Animal Carcass Incineration
  Newbridge-on-Wye: Proposed Wood-burning Power Plant
  Newbridge-on-Wye: Proposed Wood-burning Power Plant
  Transport of Military Equipment
  Transport of Military Equipment
  Warminster Garrison: Gas Appliances
  Warminster Garrison: Gas Appliances
  NMEC Board Members: Meeting with Minister
  NMEC Board Members: Meeting with Minister
  Special Advisers: Registration of Interests
  Special Advisers: Registration of Interests
  Special Advisers: Political Donations
  Special Advisers: Political Donations
  Ministerial Statements: Prior Media Briefing
  Ministerial Statements: Prior Media Briefing
  Millennium Dome: End-of-Year Celebration
  Millennium Dome: End-of-Year Celebration
  Mr David Quarmby
  Mr David Quarmby
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  NMEC: Trading Position
  NMEC: Trading Position
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  NHS Use of Imported Human Tissues
  NHS Use of Imported Human Tissues
  Mycobacterium Bovis
  Mycobacterium Bovis
  Paediatric Pathologists and Toxicologists
  Paediatric Pathologists and Toxicologists
  Soil Association Organic Status Awards
  Soil Association Organic Status Awards
  UN "Women 2000" Conference
  UN "Women 2000" Conference
  European Communities Select Committee
  European Communities Select Committee